Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Ben Finney
On 13-Jan-2006, Michael Gilbert wrote: > what I am getting at is that there should be a simple way for the user > to discover what he or she just installed. "dpkg -L ", > which is a good start, gives you information about installed files, > but the command itself is not easily discoverable (i didn

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Michael Gilbert
thank you for all of the interesting comments. what I am getting at is that there should be a simple way for the user to discover what he or she just installed. "dpkg -L ", which is a good start, gives you information about installed files, but the command itself is not easily discoverable (i did

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Lars Wirzenius
la, 2006-01-14 kello 09:21 +1100, Ben Finney kirjoitti: > If it's information the user needs to understand the package after > installation (such as "what executables did I just install?"), that > information should go in the package documentation directory. Manually maintained lists of executable

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Ben Finney
On 13-Jan-2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:29:13PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > To learn about the *package*, you look in the package documentation > > directory, /usr/share/doc/foo/. > > > > I would concur with having, for example, a "manifest" in the > > documentation di

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:29:13PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > To learn about the *package*, you look in the package documentation > directory, /usr/share/doc/foo/. > > I would concur with having, for example, a "manifest" in the > documentation directory, telling users about significant files they

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Alexander Schmehl
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 bina

Re: policy on binary/package naming convention

2006-01-13 Thread Frank Küster
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I (and I assume most users) expect the binary to be of the same name >> and case as the package name. > > The 'mercurial' package has a primary executable of 'hg', and none > called 'mercurial'. All its users expect this, and write documentation > and scrip