On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 08:14:26 +0100 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The ebuild has to be written only once, while users will type the > package name many times. An ebuild will require maintaining 10x the number of times users need to specify the cat/pn of that package. An ebuild will also need depending on quite frequently. Its also obviously a question of "what would users expect the first time" and that probably is somewhat based on "What scope of permissible characters are used in primary atoms" I suspect people expect "firefox" to just be called "firefox", because that's what its called in /usr/bin/ I suspect people expect "gcc" to be called "gcc" because that's what its called in /usr/bin/ I'd however be more understanding that Xorg be called Xorg However, when you talk about "ecosystems" like Perl/Python, the "primary point of entry" is not in /usr/bin/, its not "what will I type when I invoke the program". Its "What will I type in code to use this" And given that's case sensitive in Perl, it makes sense that people wanting "Foo" would type "use Foo" and "emerge Foo" And I'd imagine similar reasons exist in python/ruby. In short, my argument is not so much that /they should be named after what they'll install/, but /named after how end users consume it/ That is: Whatever spelling we use, it should be consistent with the spelling they use the most in a *non* gentoo context.
pgpYXihiDxFWV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
