Re: Mercury compiler (policy, anybody)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 Feb 1997, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> Date: 24 Feb 1997 11:52:36 +0100
> From: Milan Zamazal <pdm@blackbird.ics.muni.cz>
> To: Debian Development <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
> Subject: Mercury compiler (policy, anybody)?
>
> I could possibly package Mercury compiler (which is on wish list) but
> I have two questions about it first:
>
> 1. (Policy question):
> Mercury contains binary `mc', which is the same name as for popular
> Midnight Commander binary. I didn't like to see such a stupid
> conflict between mercury and mc only because their binaries have the
> same name. Is there some solution of this problem?
Change the name of mercury to mcc or add mercury_ as a prefix (if it uses
autoconf, do `configure --program-prefix=mercury_'), or call it simply
"mercury" (if that's the name of the package, why not?).
Midnight commander should get the because:-
1. The package is called "mc". People expect the binary to be
called that.
2. It's more popular.
3. It's already in the distribution.
- --
Tom Lees <tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk> http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/
PGP ID 87D4D065, fingerprint 2A 66 86 9D 02 4D A6 1E B8 A2 17 9D 4F 9B 89 D6
finger tom@master.debian.org for full public key (also available on keyservers)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMxdZ5/152HGH1NBlAQEh9wP+LZCglcgZiZXVoUsSzc1ESvCE70MM6rUr
ro0u8r7Y7u7L04f/MfEqk+UZBvAR1/V61set5uFjFvFuaHm5wNSa2S1xmfP44/3k
FFDOYaTBuNyo6oNVMaAGY/mpcgvMoTY92t6rmgY2rpOMf9f23keXu7UAoOb7gd8x
zGx/4KqPdHQ=
=Nx5L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: