Hi, On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> wrote: >> I think the issue has been open for long enough without clear consensus. >> Hence all packages should rename their /usr/bin/pip to something else and >> document the difference vs upstream in README.Debian. >> >> BTW, finding new names is hard, but choosing a 3 letter acronym is a >> recipe for problems...
I don't want to keep beating this dead horse, but the position from the Perl community is that: 1. We picked the name 'pip' first (the release of Perl's pip precedes Python's pip) 2. The author of Python's pip was informed of the naming conflict on his blog 3. The author chose to ignore it And now we're in this mess. So, either the author is a jerk, or he just didn't think anyone would be installing both on the same system. But as we have the 'pip' package name, I think it is fair we get the 'pip' script name. I see no reason for Perl's pip to have to change its name, simply because the author of Python's pip chose a name which was already in use by someone else, and because the author was already informed that something like this might happen, and chose to proceed anyway. > of course I'm s little biased on this, but I'm attending Pycon italia > and 2 talks (over the 4 given by know) already provide explicit > references to pip and also about how to use it (that's as simple as > "pip install <module>"). What happens if someone releases a script called 'sh' and wants to install it to /usr/bin/sh? Despite being informed that obviously it conflicts with peoples' shells. I consider this a similar problem, but on a much smaller scale (obviously Perl's pip is not as popular as sh), but the point is still valid. > would be another source of frustration for the python community > willing to use debian (and that community is already being harmed > several times). Rather than cripple Perl's pip, if it's really not in use by anyone, I think we should just remove the pip package and let Python take over the name and /usr/bin path. But if it is in use, then given the author of the Python script had advance warning, I think the "Python community" effectively did this harm to themselves. I do not think it is unreasonable to think of script names the same as module names, as: "on a first-come, first-served basis" -- it is the responsibility of each author to do a search to make sure they are not picking the same names as anyone else. Not only did he fail to do adequate research, he failed to predict this would happen and change the name accordingly. In summary: if we do not need the Perl version, remove it. If we need the Perl version, its name should stay as 'pip'. This decision should be made irrespective of Python's pip, because Perl's pip came first (so I think it deserves that privilege). Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
