I have to agree. Regardless of the decision on xdg's side, the debian-specific "open" binary shouldn't exist. J. Leclanche
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Ma Xiaojun <damage3...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg