[gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]

I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other people
thought of it.

What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?

This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other people
> thought of it.
> 
> What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
> 
> This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
> config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.
+1 here.

For the moment, add a symlink with the config-* name, and over time,
lets go to putting the packages as being named config-* with an extra
symlink as *-config until we are sure they are all gone.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Markus Nigbur]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:13:02 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other
> > people thought of it.
> > 
> > What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> > distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> > config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
> > 
> > This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
> > config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.
> +1 here.
> 
> For the moment, add a symlink with the config-* name, and over time,
> lets go to putting the packages as being named config-* with an extra
> symlink as *-config until we are sure they are all gone.

sounds nice. at least some easier structure in a system with no global
configuration tool.

+1

-- 
Markus Nigbur
Gentoo Developer
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Luca Barbato]

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
>>I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other people
>>thought of it.
>>
>>What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
>>distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
>>config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
>>
>>This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
>>config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.
> 
> +1 here.
> 
> For the moment, add a symlink with the config-* name, and over time,
> lets go to putting the packages as being named config-* with an extra
> symlink as *-config until we are sure they are all gone.
> 
+1 too

I'd like to keep the symlink for compatibility if they don't clash with 
the path-config tools.

I'd prefer to avoid branding anyway (please NO gentoo-config-*).

-- 
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux				http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[William Kenworthy]

I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than gentoo-*
sounding a bit ... odd!)

how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about: is
there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If not, some
kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a godsend!

So I am suggesting
g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
g-config-distcc, g-config-java
and so on

BillK

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 22:45, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> 
> I'd prefer to avoid branding anyway (please NO gentoo-config-*).
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Ricardo Loureiro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than gentoo-*
> sounding a bit ... odd!)
> 
> how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about: is
> there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If not, some
> kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a godsend!
> 
> So I am suggesting
> g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> and so on

Since portage uses a lot of "e" based commands (emerge, ebuild) why not calling it econfig-* or econf-*?

Ricardo Loureiro 

1024D/6B7C0EC0: BA28 B022 E0A9 03C5 9E5F 7BD7 25E3 CF69 6B7C 0EC0

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Markus Nigbur]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than gentoo-*
> sounding a bit ... odd!)
> 
> how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about: is
> there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If not,
> some kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a godsend!
> 
> So I am suggesting
> g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> and so on
> 
> BillK

Well, the whole idea is good, but those names are really considerable
stupid-looking :(
But apparently i can't think of anything better.

-- Markus

-- 
Markus Nigbur
Gentoo Developer
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Peter Ruskin]

On Tuesday 18 Nov 2003 00:11, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
>
> William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than
> > gentoo-* sounding a bit ... odd!)
> >
> > how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about:
> > is there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If
> > not, some kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a
> > godsend!
> >
> > So I am suggesting
> > g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> > g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> > g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> > and so on
> >
> > BillK
>
> Well, the whole idea is good, but those names are really considerable
> stupid-looking :(
> But apparently i can't think of anything better.
>
> -- Markus

I think the first idea was the best: config-*

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Portage 2.0.49-r15 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 
2.4.23_pre8-gss)
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
======================================================================


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Jason Mobarak]

Hi --

I vote config-* and update-* -- the other names seem a little convoluted if the
intent is to make a clear and concise tool naming scheme.

-- Jason A Mobarak (aka Aether on Freenode)

On 00:26 Tue 18 Nov     , Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 Nov 2003 00:11, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
> >
> > William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than
> > > gentoo-* sounding a bit ... odd!)
> > >
> > > how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about:
> > > is there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If
> > > not, some kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a
> > > godsend!
> > >
> > > So I am suggesting
> > > g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> > > g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> > > g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> > > and so on
> > >
> > > BillK
> >
> > Well, the whole idea is good, but those names are really considerable
> > stupid-looking :(
> > But apparently i can't think of anything better.
> >
> > -- Markus
> 
> I think the first idea was the best: config-*
> 
> Peter
> -- 
> ======================================================================
> Portage 2.0.49-r15 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 
> 2.4.23_pre8-gss)
> i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
> ======================================================================
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Bill Kenworthy]

The reason for using "g-" was so typing "g-<tab>" will get ALL gentoo
utilities.  Otherwise the advantage of being consistent and hierarchal
is largely lost (you do need a (hopefully) short "top of tree"
identifier for the hierarchy).  You will also need to allow for other
configuration tools such as g-cpan.pl which is a gentoo utility, but is
really  perl module installer similar to emerge.

Another example is the gentoolkit utilities like revdep-rebuild -
there's lots of messages telling people that this tool is available, but
no other way to tell its there if you are in the middle of a disaster
and trying to figure out what to do.

Lastly, when I was using mandrake, they were prefixing all their
utilities with "drak" which made finding the tools *SO* easy.  This is
not about copying what they do, but being smarter about what we do.

BillK

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 09:13, Jason Mobarak wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> I vote config-* and update-* -- the other names seem a little convoluted if the
> intent is to make a clear and concise tool naming scheme.
> 
> -- Jason A Mobarak (aka Aether on Freenode)
> 
> On 00:26 Tue 18 Nov     , Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 Nov 2003 00:11, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
> > >
> > > William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than
> > > > gentoo-* sounding a bit ... odd!)
> > > >
> > > > how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about:
> > > > is there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If
> > > > not, some kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a
> > > > godsend!
> > > >
> > > > So I am suggesting
> > > > g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> > > > g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> > > > g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> > > > and so on
> > > >
> > > > BillK
> > >
> > > Well, the whole idea is good, but those names are really considerable
> > > stupid-looking :(
> > > But apparently i can't think of anything better.
> > >
> > > -- Markus
> > 
> > I think the first idea was the best: config-*
> > 
> > Peter
> > -- 
> > ======================================================================
> > Portage 2.0.49-r15 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 
> > 2.4.23_pre8-gss)
> > i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
> > ======================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> The reason for using "g-" was so typing "g-<tab>" will get ALL gentoo
> utilities.  Otherwise the advantage of being consistent and hierarchal
> is largely lost (you do need a (hopefully) short "top of tree"
> identifier for the hierarchy).  You will also need to allow for other
> configuration tools such as g-cpan.pl which is a gentoo utility, but is
> really  perl module installer similar to emerge.

Its amazing the new things I find out everyday about Gentoo. The other day I wrote an 
ebuild for the perl module Spreadsheet::WriteExcel and submitted it on bugs.gentoo.org 
when all I needed to do was 'g-cpan.pl Spreadsheet::WriteExcel'.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Jason Mobarak]

Yeah... with this rational the g- naming scheme sounds like a good idea. I've
been in several situations where I'm definitely not wanting to try and remember
which tool could save my butt, it'd be nice to type g-<tab> and get a listing of
all the Gentoo specific tools offered. Perhaps combined with update-* and 
config-* this could be really useful.

-- Jason Mobarak

On 09:31 Tue 18 Nov     , Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> The reason for using "g-" was so typing "g-<tab>" will get ALL gentoo
> utilities.  Otherwise the advantage of being consistent and hierarchal
> is largely lost (you do need a (hopefully) short "top of tree"
> identifier for the hierarchy).  You will also need to allow for other
> configuration tools such as g-cpan.pl which is a gentoo utility, but is
> really  perl module installer similar to emerge.
> 
> Another example is the gentoolkit utilities like revdep-rebuild -
> there's lots of messages telling people that this tool is available, but
> no other way to tell its there if you are in the middle of a disaster
> and trying to figure out what to do.
> 
> Lastly, when I was using mandrake, they were prefixing all their
> utilities with "drak" which made finding the tools *SO* easy.  This is
> not about copying what they do, but being smarter about what we do.
> 
> BillK
> 
> On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 09:13, Jason Mobarak wrote:
> > Hi --
> > 
> > I vote config-* and update-* -- the other names seem a little convoluted if the
> > intent is to make a clear and concise tool naming scheme.
> > 
> > -- Jason A Mobarak (aka Aether on Freenode)
> > 
> > On 00:26 Tue 18 Nov     , Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 18 Nov 2003 00:11, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:18:42 +0800
> > > >
> > > > William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > I dont see a problem with branding in this case (other than
> > > > > gentoo-* sounding a bit ... odd!)
> > > > >
> > > > > how many other tools such as g-cpan.pl exist that few know about:
> > > > > is there a consolidated list of these tools and what they do? If
> > > > > not, some kind of consistent, hierarchal naming scheme will be a
> > > > > godsend!
> > > > >
> > > > > So I am suggesting
> > > > > g-update-etc, g-update-opengl
> > > > > g-install-cpan, g-install-cran
> > > > > g-config-distcc, g-config-java
> > > > > and so on
> > > > >
> > > > > BillK
> > > >
> > > > Well, the whole idea is good, but those names are really considerable
> > > > stupid-looking :(
> > > > But apparently i can't think of anything better.
> > > >
> > > > -- Markus
> > > 
> > > I think the first idea was the best: config-*
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > > -- 
> > > ======================================================================
> > > Portage 2.0.49-r15 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 
> > > 2.4.23_pre8-gss)
> > > i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
> > > ======================================================================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 11:10, Jason Mobarak wrote:
> Yeah... with this rational the g- naming scheme sounds like a good idea. I've
> been in several situations where I'm definitely not wanting to try and remember
> which tool could save my butt, it'd be nice to type g-<tab> and get a listing of
> all the Gentoo specific tools offered. Perhaps combined with update-* and 
> config-* this could be really useful.
> 
> -- Jason Mobarak

That was my goal in suggesting that the update-* tools be renamed
config-*. Because it's merely semantics in calling it an update or a
configuration, they're both really about the same.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:31:54AM +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> The reason for using "g-" was so typing "g-<tab>" will get ALL gentoo
> utilities.  Otherwise the advantage of being consistent and hierarchal
> is largely lost (you do need a (hopefully) short "top of tree"
> identifier for the hierarchy).  You will also need to allow for other
> configuration tools such as g-cpan.pl which is a gentoo utility, but is
> really  perl module installer similar to emerge.

Try this:
emerge sync
emerge gentoolkit
makewhatis
apropos gentoo

I'll see if we can't add the Gentoo keyword to all our other tools' 
man page descriptions as well. 

Naturally, I think unifying the nomenclature is a good thing, but I'm
not entirely certain I want long names for my tools. I find apropos
to be a better solution for that.


Kind regards,

Karl T

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[William Kenworthy]

Not bad.  Last time I used apropos was some years ago on on a solaris
system - I dont think its well used these days.  But if it can be
highlighted in the docs enough, it will certainly help.

I would look at it as a separate issue to implementing hierarchal
naming.  Downside would be ensuring all utilities have this keyword and
spreading the word.

BillK

On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 01:49, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:31:54AM +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> > The reason for using "g-" was so typing "g-<tab>" will get ALL gentoo
> > utilities.  Otherwise the advantage of being consistent and hierarchal
> > is largely lost (you do need a (hopefully) short "top of tree"
> > identifier for the hierarchy).  You will also need to allow for other
> > configuration tools such as g-cpan.pl which is a gentoo utility, but is
> > really  perl module installer similar to emerge.
> 
> Try this:
> emerge sync
> emerge gentoolkit
> makewhatis
> apropos gentoo
> 
> I'll see if we can't add the Gentoo keyword to all our other tools' 
> man page descriptions as well. 
> 
> Naturally, I think unifying the nomenclature is a good thing, but I'm
> not entirely certain I want long names for my tools. I find apropos
> to be a better solution for that.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Karl T
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

KarlTK wrote:[Tue Nov 18 2003, 12:49:52PM EST]
> Try this:
> emerge sync
> emerge gentoolkit
> makewhatis
> apropos gentoo

Cool!

> Naturally, I think unifying the nomenclature is a good thing, but I'm
> not entirely certain I want long names for my tools. I find apropos
> to be a better solution for that.

Agreed.

Aron

-- 
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Brian Jackson]

On Sunday 16 November 2003 03:24 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other people
> thought of it.
> 
> What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
> 
> This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
> config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.
> 

Would also fix the possible collisions with tools that come with packages that 
tell lib paths, etc. (i.e. gtk-config, kde-config, or the one that is really 
getting in my way courier-config)

--Iggy

-- 
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[George Shapovalov]

On Sunday 16 November 2003 08:08, Brian Jackson wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2003 03:24 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> > distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> > config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
>
> Would also fix the possible collisions with tools that come with packages
> that tell lib paths, etc. (i.e. gtk-config, kde-config, or the one that is
> really getting in my way courier-config)
>
Then, while we are at it, why we also don't change config => setup (for 
example), in the hope that it will be more distinct?
setup-gcc, setup-java....
This might also sound more like distro-tool rather than package-tool..

George



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Jason Rhinelander]

It seems to me that consistency would demand the same thing for 
*-update.  I've been in a situation where I've needed to run 
SOMETHING-update before, but couldn't remember what "SOMETHING" was. 
Being able to tab complete update-<tab> would be great!

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other people
> thought of it.
> 
> What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
> 
> This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
> config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[donnie berkholz]

>
> It seems to me that consistency would demand the same thing for
> *-update.  I've been in a situation where I've needed to run
> SOMETHING-update before, but couldn't remember what "SOMETHING" was.
> Being able to tab complete update-<tab> would be great!
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> I just had an idea (how rare, eh?) and I wanted to see what other
>> people thought of it.
>>
>> What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
>> distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
>> config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
>>
>> This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
>> config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.

I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also for
consistency.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Gregorio Guidi]

On Monday 17 November 2003 05:18, donnie berkholz wrote:
> >> What if we renamed all the *-config tools to config-* (gcc-config,
> >> distcc-config, java-config, etc. would move to config-gcc,
> >> config-distcc, config-java, etc.)?
> >>
> >> This would allow people trying to configure anything to simply type
> >> config-<tab> and get a listing of what was available.
>
> I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also for
> consistency.
>
RedHat had a good thought when renamed all his config tools to 
redhat-config-<tool>.
I'm thinking at an admin that comes from another distro and occasionally sits 
in front of a gentoo box, he could type gentoo-<tab> and get an idea of 
distro-specific tools.

Bye.
Gregorio Guidi

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Markus Nigbur]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:18:09 -0500 (EST)
"donnie berkholz" <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also
> for consistency.

Ehrm, IMHO *-update should be scripts that don't need any user
interaction, like env-update or opengl-update (and yes, etc-update is an
exception; even so it should really be called etc-config. ;)

so i partly disagree with renaming those to config-*, as it's not a
configuration process, but an automatic update of something.

-- Markus

-- 
Markus Nigbur
Gentoo Developer
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 00:09, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:18:09 -0500 (EST)
>
> "donnie berkholz" <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also
> > for consistency.
>
> Ehrm, IMHO *-update should be scripts that don't need any user
> interaction, like env-update or opengl-update (and yes, etc-update is an
> exception; even so it should really be called etc-config. ;)

Umm, in a sense opengl-update does need interaction - even if it's only 
passing command line parameters to the proggy. env-update is a different 
story; you just run it and it does it's thing. Personally, I would feel that 
opengl-update would be a good candidate to switch to config-. I can't think 
of too many that would fall into the update- class (using the 
"non-interactive" definition), but perhaps things like fixpackages?

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Markus Nigbur]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:32:39 +0900
Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday 18 November 2003 00:09, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:18:09 -0500 (EST)
> >
> > "donnie berkholz" <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-*
> > > also for consistency.
> >
> > Ehrm, IMHO *-update should be scripts that don't need any user
> > interaction, like env-update or opengl-update (and yes, etc-update
> > is an exception; even so it should really be called etc-config. ;)
> 
> Umm, in a sense opengl-update does need interaction - even if it's
> only passing command line parameters to the proggy.

That's what i mean. User interaction is more than just specifiying some
commandline options. Those could also be specified by a default file,
a script calling the *-update script or simply default values.
User interaction starts when the user actively has to do some stuff when
running the script (as with etc-update).

-- Markus

-- 
Markus Nigbur
Gentoo Developer
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] *-config tool renaming?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 891 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 10:09, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:18:09 -0500 (EST)
> "donnie berkholz" <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I had imagined renaming anything that was *-update to config-* also
> > for consistency.
> 
> Ehrm, IMHO *-update should be scripts that don't need any user
> interaction, like env-update or opengl-update (and yes, etc-update is an
> exception; even so it should really be called etc-config. ;)
> 
> so i partly disagree with renaming those to config-*, as it's not a
> configuration process, but an automatic update of something.

opengl-update does require user interaction, it needs to know which set
of GL libs to link to. You can't just run "opengl-update," you need to
run opengl-update ati, opengl-update nvidia or opengl-update xfree. In
essence this is no different from gcc-config, distcc-config or
java-config.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]