[csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) dnstop, pcp

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Peter Bonivart <bonivart at opencsw.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> I hope it's okay to jump in here. Please, please, noooooooooooo. In my
>> experience those disparate pkg and catalog names are a common cause of
>> confusion for most people, in particular newcomers. If we want to avoid
>> PCP because of name clashes, how about pidconport/CSWpidconport (and PCP
>> in the description string)? I realize, that it then doesn't have pcp in
>> either string any more (and thus can't be found with -a), but those
>> different pkg / catalog names are such a pain.
>
> So what choices do we have?
>
> CSWpcp / pcp
> CSWpcp / pidconport
> CSWpidconport / pidconport
>
> I thought we liked short names,

well yes, shortname, as opposed to really-long-extended-name. But
there's nothing wrong with a reasonable medium length name, in my
opinion :)



> in this case it's called pcp by its
> author as well so it's no freakish abbreviation I came up with. I
> could go with the last one as well but I think users will look for
> pcp, not for pidconport.

I agree, users of THAT pcp, will look for pcp first, but then others
of OTHER "pcp" programs will also look for that, and get confused.

Woudl you mind doing a little research, and poking around for other
distributions' packages of pidconport, and comparing their naming
choices please?

I did a little search for "packges of pcp" already, and got a mess of
conflicting names and programs, which is why I circled back.