Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122 --- Comment #19 from Andrea Francia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-02 18:48:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #15) > > (In reply to comment #14) > > > The right level > > > of non-genericity is something subjective, my feeling is that > > > trash is not right since it may clash easily with an application doing > > > something > > > very different, and be used in a standard in the future, be > > > is a defacto standard like what is in some basic package like util-linux, > > > coreutils, bash buil-in and a few others or a real standard. > > > > When a such standard will be created I can accommodate the trash-cli command > > names to do not conflict with the standard. > > Anticipating by not using generic names will help not forcing users > to redo all their scripts. So I should reduce the usability of a program for something that could (or could not) happen in the future? I never heard about a list of UNIX commands names reserved for future uses. Can we relax this constraing putting trash-cli in the extra packages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
