Hi Óscar,
> Am I wrong, should it be called `ms-edit` or `microsoft-edit`? And if
> so, is it also logical to rename the executable to `ms-edit` or
> `msedit`?
According to the Rust package guidelines [1], the package name should be
identical to the name of the binary your package provides. I also agree
with your comment [2] in that there’s no obvious hard rule that would go
against sticking to `edit`, and in that avoiding unnecessary additions
or modifications is a good thing.
With that out of the way, your package is a duplicate of both
microsoft-edit [3] and ms-edit [4]. Both were uploaded before yours was.
Duplicate packages are not allowed, so I figure that all things
considered, the deletion and merge requests are justified.
Another argument that speaks in favor of the existing packages (and
against yours) is that your package causes a clash with `/usr/bin/edit`,
a binary that the `vi` package provides. The relative usage of `vi` is
~ 47% [5], which is high enough to be an issue in practice.
The two existing packages already took care of renaming their binaries
to match the package name.
Regards
Claudia (Auerhuhn)
[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust_package_guidelines#Package_naming
[2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/edit#comment-1025532
[3]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/microsoft-edit
[4]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ms-edit
[5]: https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages/vi
On 22.05.25 9:00 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
Hello folks,
I have recently packaged the Microsoft edit[1] in the AUR[2] and it
seems to have opened a debate on whether the name is correct or not (in
fact the package already has two requests, one for deletion and the
other for merging).
IMHO the correct package is the one I uploaded as it does not collide
with anything (the name `edit` was not being used in any package) and
is obviously the closest to upstream (which I have always understood to
be the philosophy of Arch Linux). But in any case I would like to know
your opinion.
Am I wrong, should it be called `ms-edit` or `microsoft-edit`? And if
so, is it also logical to rename the executable to `ms-edit` or
`msedit`?
I read you, best regards.
[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/edit
[2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/edit
