Le 07-02-27 à 04:56, Emmanuel Hainry a écrit :
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?
There is some history behind us too. As far as I know, awk is gawk
and tar is gnutar. make is both gnumake and gmake ...
There is an OS behind us too. We might want to name make and tar
gmake and gtar just to make a difference from those is /usr/bin or we
might stick to the same names to avoid confusion.
yves
PS: dp stands for DarwinPorts
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
