Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:22:38 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Naming of executable Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961120202201.23492A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199611201018.LAA02261@knight.cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Martin Cracauer wrote: > > Realated to the last question, what is FreeBSD's policy to name > executables? > > Especially Scheme implementations tend to use short, meaningless names > that probably will cause conflicts with other ports. Additionally, it > is not obvious what the file is. > > For myself, I have symbolic links from the short native names to more > meaningful ones. Suppose I have scm, stk, siod and scsh installed, > then I make symbolic links to scheme-scm, scheme-stk, scheme-siod und > scheme-scsh. I leave the original names intact. This scheme helps me > to keep an overview of Scheme implementations I installed. Looking at > the symbolic link, I can also tell which of the short names are scheme > implementations. > > Could you please drop me notes on the following questions: > > - Am I resposible to install binaries under names that are not used by > other ports or is it bad luck if the user overwrites? > > - Should I create links to <lang-name>-<imp-name> as show above? Why not install with only the long name? Sander > > Thanks > Martin > -- > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer > cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (batched, preferred for large mails) > Tel.: (daytime) +4940 41478712 (sometimes hacker's daytime :-) > Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 > Paper: (private) Waldstrasse 200, 22846 Norderstedt, Germany >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961120202201.23492A-100000>