gnu ports

[Blair Zajac]

Elias,

Regarding the recent commits to change the normal_install_name variant 
name to without_prefix, I'm disappointed that this change was made 
without any discussion, given the previous discussion several months 
agoand work I put in coming up with that name, and committing it to a 
number of ports to be consistent.

The new name, without_prefix, isn't entirely accurate, since it implies 
there are no executables with a prefix, but the prefixed name will 
exists.  That why the normal_install_name variant name is named that 
way, since it doesn't imply the removal of the prefixed name.

Would you mind reverting your variant name change and we can discuss a 
better name.

BTW, I'm not disputing the name is ugly, but it was a best attempt at 
being accurate.

Thanks,
Blair

Elias Pipping wrote:
> correction:
> 
> that would mean:
> 
>  * rename file to gfile
>  * rename gnutar to gtar
>  * ...
> 
>  * make gnutar (then gtar) install "gtar" (nothing to be done)
>  * make gsed install "gsed"
>  * ...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Elias Pipping
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:
> 
>> I'm starting to take that g-suffix back into consideration. Could you 
>> live
>> with gwhich,gsed,gawk,gcc *and gtar*?
>>
>> that would mean:
>>
>>  * rename gnused to gsed
>>  * rename file to gfile
>>  * rename gnutar to gtar
>>  * ...
>>
>>  * make gnutar (then gtar) install "gtar"
>>  * ...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Elias Pipping
>>
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>>
>>> 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 at lists.macosforge.org
>>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> macports-dev mailing list
>> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
> 


-- 
Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
CTO, OrcaWare Technologies
<blair at orcaware.com>
Subversion training, consulting and support
http://www.orcaware.com/svn/