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

[Peter Bonivart]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Philip Brown <phil at opencsw.org> wrote:
> in other words, my presumption is that most people will come to our
> package set with an expectation of, "well,
> [Debian/freebsdj/ubuntu/....] has it, so you should too",   more than,
> "well, sunfreeware/blastwave/whatever has it".
>
> So, naming of applications, (particularly long-time well-known ones),
> matters in well known distributions, even if they are not strictly
> speaking solaris distributions.

But we don't have it so it's a non-issue with the naming. If we
actually had both pcp and Performance Copilot, naming would be an
issue and still it would be much more reasonable that the one actually
called pcp is also called so by us and the one with a much longer name
is shortened to something still recognizable, e.g. like Dago suggested
perfcp. The descriptions field for both could give the "full name" to
clear up any confusion.

To just state that people will try to install Performance Copilot as
pcp because they did that on Debian is vague to say the least (maybe
if it was a popular package like Apache) and even if pcp is renamed to
something that people who want pcp definitely will not look for it
still doesn't help Debian people thinking they will get Performance
Copilot since we don't have that. And we probably never will either
since it's geared (as far as I can tell) towards Linux and we have the
excellent DTrace instead.

-- 
/peter