T. Alexander Popiel
popiel at wolfskeep.com
Tue Jul 15 11:51:02 EDT 2003
In message: <16148.14430.102192.335008 at montanaro.dyndns.org>
Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> writes:
> >> Fine by me, but why the sb- prefix? Is there some clash with
> >> existing applications?
> Alex> I don't think the issue is clash with existing applications;
> Alex> rather, the issue is namespace pollution. The gist of the
> Alex> argument is that if we use such generic names, then future people
> Alex> will be barred from using equally generic names... but we have no
> Alex> more right to those names than those other people, so we should
> Alex> not preemptively take the names.
>Tools like Apache install themselves in their own directory tree. For
>example, /usr/local/apache/sbin/apachectl instead of
>/usr/local/sbin/apachectl. That seems a bit cleaner to me. Most of our
>applications aren't the sort of things you'd run from the command line like
>grep anyway. They'd be run in the background as daemons or from procmail
>files, so the somewhat cumbersome path wouldn't be a big deal.
This starts to run afoul packaging guidelines for various projects.
For instance, Debian forbids dumping stuff into /usr/local, though
/usr/bin/spambayes/* would be allowed. Similarly, Solaris tends
toward /opt/spambayes/bin/*. I don't think there's any good
consensus for handling this sort of thing; having non-polluting
names makes it easier for everyone to do what is "most right" for
whatever system they're repackaging spambayes for.
It's all fairly annoying.
More information about the spambayes-dev