On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:02:17PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 01:09:48PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:13:23AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Of course, dillo2 is not a library package, but I think it should follow the same convention on the grounds of least surprise. (Unless there is a compelling reason not to, but I don't think that there is.)
Everybody: please add your comment in this thread, even if stated before.
I would prefer "dillo". If anybody wants/needs both versions, mv and ln -s are available to them.
I would prefer "dillo2". If anybody builds their own version, it should be easy enough for them to change it to "dillo", "dillorc", etc. at compile time. If a distribution is to package it, unless the new program is a drop-in replacement for the old program, the new program should probably have a different name. I haven't looked at fltk-dillo much, but command-line switches acting differently isn't a sign of a drop-in replacement. Are there any incompatibilities with the content of the rc file? Just my haven't-coded-in-a-while opinion... f -- Francis Daly francis@daoine.org