Hi Ansgar, -=| Ansgar Burchardt, Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 09:57:55PM +0100 |=- > 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.
Unless xgettext.pl implements gettext's xgettext functionality 1:1, there is always place for confusion. I am not sure if this 1:1 is really possible - parsing sources in the same way, generating output files formatted in exactly the same way, options, defaults, new versions... If Locale::Maketext::Extract::Run emulates xgettext completely (obviously adding more source file formats), then a diversion should be fine, I think. > > 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. > > 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... If upstream did it the wrong way, we fix it :) More proposals: xmaketext, xgettext-maketext -- dam JabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
