Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:52:49 +0200
- From: <tomas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:16:41AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Another one is "import" - should simply NEVER be a program name -
> should be reserved.
> man page: import - saves any visible window on an X server and
> outputs it as an image file. You can capture a single window, the
> entire screen, or any rectangular portion of the screen
> git does it sensibly (in the last few years) with a primary basename
> and sub commands.
> Many of these packages (especially old X stuff) “should” migrate to
> the command/subcommand way of life.
Funny how these young-ups tend to lump everything older than a couple
of years as "old X stuff" ;-P 
To be fair towards X, they were somewhat aware of this name space
problem, and most X clients (distributed by the X suite) have the
prefix "x". Might be better, but actually not bad.
Now "import" is quite another kettle of fish: it's part of the
ImageMagick suite (not much to do with X, actually), which has the
(questionable) tradition of calling its things "display", "convert",
"identify", "compare"... or even "conjure"). Now ImageMagick is so
useful that people seem to tolerate it, but a prefix (e.g. "im-")
or a super-command ("im") would be more modern, yes.
 Hey, *very* tongue-in-cheek. No offense meeant. But the situation
nearly forced me to that nonsense.
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----