| 1 |
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 08:14:26 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The ebuild has to be written only once, while users will type the |
| 5 |
> package name many times. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
An ebuild will require maintaining 10x the number of times |
| 8 |
users need to specify the cat/pn of that package. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
An ebuild will also need depending on quite frequently. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Its also obviously a question of "what would users expect the first time" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
and that probably is somewhat based on "What scope of permissible characters are used in primary atoms" |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I suspect people expect "firefox" to just be called "firefox", because that's what its called in /usr/bin/ |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I suspect people expect "gcc" to be called "gcc" because that's what its called in /usr/bin/ |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd however be more understanding that Xorg be called Xorg |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
However, when you talk about "ecosystems" like Perl/Python, the "primary point of entry" |
| 23 |
is not in /usr/bin/, its not "what will I type when I invoke the program". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Its "What will I type in code to use this" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And given that's case sensitive in Perl, it makes sense that people wanting "Foo" would |
| 28 |
type "use Foo" and "emerge Foo" |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And I'd imagine similar reasons exist in python/ruby. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
In short, my argument is not so much that /they should be named after what they'll install/, |
| 33 |
but /named after how end users consume it/ |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
That is: Whatever spelling we use, it should be consistent with the spelling they use the most |
| 36 |
in a *non* gentoo context. |
Archives