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" Regards, 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? Regards, Elias Pipping 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"
Regards,
Elias Pipping
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
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
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@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
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@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Le 07-02-27 à 04:56, Emmanuel Hainry a écrit :
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?
There is some history behind us too. As far as I know, awk is gawk and tar is gnutar. make is both gnumake and gmake ... There is an OS behind us too. We might want to name make and tar gmake and gtar just to make a difference from those is /usr/bin or we might stick to the same names to avoid confusion. yves PS: dp stands for DarwinPorts
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@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
-- Blair Zajac, Ph.D. CTO, OrcaWare Technologies <blair@orcaware.com> Subversion training, consulting and support http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
Elias Pipping wrote:
The new name, without_prefix, isn't entirely accurate.
I beg to differ.
Would you mind reverting your variant name change and we can discuss a better name.
r22390.
Thanks. Any ideas? Granted normal_install_names isn't great, but it's a positive variant, in the sense that it's adding something to the Port, instead of a +without, which implies that something is being taken away. Regards, Blair An
+with_default_names? it's not much better but it's 'with'-conform... (like 'default' better than 'normal' for some reason) Regards, Elias Pipping On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Elias Pipping wrote:
The new name, without_prefix, isn't entirely accurate. I beg to differ. Would you mind reverting your variant name change and we can discuss a better name. r22390.
Thanks. Any ideas? Granted normal_install_names isn't great, but it's a positive variant, in the sense that it's adding something to the Port, instead of a +without, which implies that something is being taken away.
Regards, Blair An
Sounds good to me! Regards, Blair Elias Pipping wrote:
+with_default_names?
it's not much better but it's 'with'-conform... (like 'default' better than 'normal' for some reason)
Regards,
Elias Pipping
On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Elias Pipping wrote:
The new name, without_prefix, isn't entirely accurate. I beg to differ. Would you mind reverting your variant name change and we can discuss a better name. r22390.
Thanks. Any ideas? Granted normal_install_names isn't great, but it's a positive variant, in the sense that it's adding something to the Port, instead of a +without, which implies that something is being taken away.
Regards, Blair An
I think you'll find that pretty much every proposed namespace- mangling approach pretty much sucks. Apple uses the "gnu" prefix in all of two of its GNU binaries - gnumake and gnutar. That said, nobody at all uses them that way. They use "make", which is GNU make, and "tar", which is GNU tar. The aliases we create are essentially useless. Someday we may swap out gnutar for BSD tar and the intended "interface" will still be called "tar", we won't expect people to use gnutar or bsdtar as a disambiguating term. Also, if the GPLv3 becomes widely adopted and many people react as predicted ("Arrrrrrghhhhhhh!!!!"), I suspect the GNU tools will be relegated to their own entire hierarchy, just to keep them from infecting anything by mistake. In the case of system providers, that hierarchy might be /usr/gnu. In the case of MacPorts, it might be / opt/local/gnu/bin, /opt/local/gnu/lib, etc. I don't know any of this for sure, of course, I'm merely speculating. Either way, it might not be worth putting a whole lot of time and effort into mangling names with something like this on the horizon - why change the world twice? - Jordan On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Elias Pipping wrote:
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?
Regards,
Elias Pipping
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"
Regards,
Elias Pipping
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
participants (5)
-
Blair Zajac
-
Elias Pipping
-
Emmanuel Hainry
-
Jordan K. Hubbard
-
Yves de Champlain