On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 01:09:48PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
... why would you want dillo1 and dillo2 at the same time.
I don't know. But when you start saying "No-one could *possibly* want to do that, so let's stop supporting it" then you are riding for a fall. Why make ourselves hostages to fortune? Why not make *sure* we avoid the problem rather than gambling that we've second-guessed our entire user base? Murphy's law applies, so play it safe unless there's a compelling reason not to.
... If there is no such reason, it doesn't make sense to rename the binary.
But we're *not* renaming the binary! We're distributing a new and *different* binary that supports a *different* command line and links to *different* libraries. As far as the OS is concerned that makes them as unlike as chalk and cheese. Therefore we should play it safe by giving them different names. That is the conventional thing to do, and also the safest. Regards, Jeremy Henty