[csw-maintainers] Alternatives

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 18.12.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sebastian Kayser  
> <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown wrote on 18.12.2009 22:11:
>>>
>>>
>>> As a pre-argument I would mention: what strong argument do you have
>>> for specifically NOT putting it in?  It in no way detracts from the
>>> functionality, and it definately enhances it. It also allows us to
>>> give it a bit more csw personality at the same time, which is an
>>> additional bonus.
>>>
>>> Not to mention it is a trivial amount of work to do. Just add a  
>>> symlink.
>>
>> A slight concern of mine would be: besides the symlink, it is another
>> invocation method that one has to keep in mind. update-alternatives  
>> on
>> it's own is canonical and well-known from Debian, add cswua (or  
>> similar)
>> to the mix and it will introduce ambiguity when people start talking
>> about tools.
>
> by that argument, you might say that me naming "pkg-get" as such, and
> not "apt-get", was just too confusing, because since the userland
> syntax is the same, and it IS a 90% clone of apt-get, I should have
> kept the name as apt-get.

No, because it is not apt-get, but a 90% clone. cswua is 100%
update-alternatives. If you as a admin-user do this seldom
you won't bother typing it and if you do it regularly then
you'll add a shell alias. Or would you also argument to have
a "ll" (or "cswll") binary for "ls -l" in GNU coreutils?


Best regards

   -- Dago