Paride Legovini <p...@ninthfloor.org> writes: > Adam Borowski wrote on 14/09/2018: >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:28:36PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>>> For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging >>>> fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). We are planning to >>>> install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with something >>>> completely different, fdclone a clone of fd, a MS-DOS file browser... >>> >>> fdclone isn't a shell utility, you just start it once, then you use its >>> ncurse-like interface. Renaming it /usr/bin/fdclone wouldn't be a >>> problem at all >> >> It _already_ is a symlink pair between "fd" and "fdsh". For the executable, >> "fd" is the master, "fdsh" the slave, the man page prefers "fdsh". > > I am the prospect maintainer of fd-find; thanks for spotting this. I > will ask the current maintainer of fdclone if he's willing to drop the > 'fd' binary, keeping only 'fdsh' (upstream installs both as hard links). > Shouldn't this be possible, I'll install the fd-find binary and man as: > > /usr/share/fd-find/bin/fd > /usr/share/fd-find/man/man1/fd.1.gz > > and provide the convenience symlinks: > > /usr/bin/fdfind -> /usr/share/fd-find/bin/fd > /usr/share/man/man1/fdfind.1.gz -> /usr/share/fd-find/man/man1/fd.1.gz > > Does this sound reasonable?
It strikes me as rather presumptious to be trying to grab a new two letter command at this point in the history of *nix (particularly when it is already in use). Personally, I'll never willingly install a binary named that, because it seems very likely to tickle my dyslexia. I'd expect it to make me very grumpy if I ever have to maintain a script that includes references to both df and fd nearby one another. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
