Bug#499128: no re.pl installed with libdevel-repl-perl
Mateu X. Hunter
mxhunter at indiana.edu
Tue Sep 16 13:53:39 UTC 2008
El mar, 16-09-2008 a las 15:42 +0200, gregor herrmann escribió:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:19:24 -0400, Mateu X. Hunter wrote:
> > I guess probably 'repl' may be the name that's truest in spirit (other
> > than re.pl), but it definitely breaks from the common name.
> Might be an opprtunity too.
> > btw, what's the good reason on no .pl in /usr/bin?
> "When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the
> script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that
> denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it."
> The keyword is "currently" - a script/binary in $PATH can change it's
> implementation language; and in general users don't care if $program
> is written in foo or bar.
Thank you for the clarification.
While that makes sense in general, names that are implementation
independent. This is a repl for perl, so it would not make sense for it
to be repl.rb or repl.sh. In this case the extension is really part of
the name because there is only one implementation language choice for a
perl repl. Maybe it's a reasonable exception to the rule, but I'm not
the decider 8).
More information about the pkg-perl-maintainers