Citando Elias Pipping : > My point was not only to draw attention to the matter but > also to encourage you to propose a convention. Since that > approach has failed I'll come up with a proposal: > > I see it this way: > > * Yes, there should be a prefix for gnu ports > * Yes, that prefix should be the same for the installed > binary and the portname > * No, it should not be "g" (easier to distinguish from > gnome ports) > * 'gnu' would be a possibility. The only conflict would > be with gnuplot, which is not gnu software. but I guess > that's possible to live with. > > Any opinion on this matter, anyone? >
Not sure a convention is the best for all ports. For sed and which, I have no preference. For gnutar, I prefer the name gnutar. For gnuawk, I prefer to name it gawk (which is the name it has on debian (for which the default awk is nawk (or is it mawk?))). For the GNU Compiler collection, I prefer (and I think everybody does) gcc, gcj, gfortran instead of gnucc, gnucj, even though the name of macports' gcc is gcc-dp-42 (why dp?;)... Oh, and why must gnu programs be distinguished from gnome? > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Elias Pipping wrote: > > >There are some inconsistencies when it comes to gnu ports > > > >e.g.: > > > > "tar" goes by the name "gnutar". its executable is called "gnutar" > > "sed" goes by the name "gsed". its executable is called "gnused" > >"which" goes by the name "gwhich". its executable is called "gwhich" > > Emmanuel _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
