gnu ports

[Emmanuel Hainry]

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