On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthias Klumpp <m...@debian.org> wrote: > Btw, I don't find "I like open better" a good justification for > dropping it from kbd - you are asking essentially for an API break > which has unforseen consequences if we just swap some binary names on > shell, especially with shell-scripts which are not included in Debian.
Given giant API breakage like making sh Dash instead of Bash or probably a init system change someday. I fail to see any reason to cry about this tiny little API change. > Standard is irrelevant here, as it is "just" a binary name, and > popularity is something to argue about. It is "just" a symbol link that exists for no merits. Have you read the open(1) ? Does it encourage people to use "open" at all? The history in the context of 1996 isn't boring, Ah? > I am not the kbd maintainer, so it's up to them to decide a rename (or > more precide, it's upstream's decision). I like "open" for files more > too, but unless kbd is the only user of that command, renaming it will > cause problems. It seems that kdb upstream is not claiming open(1); it's a Debian "extension". http://www.kbd-project.org/manpages/index.html http://sources.debian.net/src/kbd/1.15.5-1/debian/kbd.links xdg doesn't have to claim open(1) overnight either. It's just that the current usage of open(1) is a waste of namespace. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
