Hi! * Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060113 06:30]:
[ binary name differs from package name ] > This is bad in terms of usability/discoverability. I (and I assume > most users) expect the binary to be of the same name and case as the > package name. I know how to discover the correct binary, but I would > suspect that many users do not know apt-file exists; let alone how to > use it. Yes, I don't like that too. But I don't see there a big Proglem: Running "dpkg -L <packagename>|grep bin" isn't that hard, isn't it? However I agree: It would be a nice to have it documented, if the binaryname differs from the packagename, or - in the case of capitalized letters - symlinked. However, I want to point out, that it makes pretty much sense to have different names. I maintain a game calle "planetpenguin racer". Source tarball and binary are called "ppracer". Since I thought that most user would search for the long name I named the package planetpenguin-racer, mentioning the short form in the package description. IMHO it is a benefit, if the packagename itselfs tells a bit about the package. ppracer_0.3.1-7_i386.deb doesn't. Untill now I didn't heard any critics from my users, but I could add something to README.Debian... Yours sincerely, Alexander -- http://learn.to/quote/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
