Hi,
Damyan Ivanov <d...@debian.org> writes:
> -=| Ansgar Burchardt, Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 07:04:05PM +0100 |=-
>> Why not just keep the name "xgettext.pl" in this case? It is less
>> confusing than a completely different name. Also other documentation
>> (e.g. Catalyst::Plugin::I18N::Manual) refers to "xgettext.pl".
>
> We have a precedent -- thread starts at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2007/11/msg00035.html.
>
> At the end the script was renamed
`par' and `par-archive' do quite different things though. In
xgettext{,.pl}'s case both programs perform a similar task so there is
less chance of confusion.
> The relevant text from Policy ยง10.4 is
>
> When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the
> script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that
> denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it.
>
> So I think that an alternate xgettext implementation should use
> alternate name, without extension.
>
> xgettext-ng? :)
I admit not liking this section from policy ;-) I understand the
intention behind this, but in my opinion renaming programs *only* in
Debian causes more harm than good. Documentation points to programs
that do not exist, scripts (and Makefiles) will have to be adapted
specifically for Debian...
Regards,
Ansgar
--
PGP: 1024D/595FAD19 739E 2D09 0969 BEA9 9797 B055 DDB0 2FF7 595F AD19
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
