From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swedebugia Subject: Re: 05/15: gnu: wesnoth: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth. Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <5476d986-6fd3-cfa3-fc11-c3a82088ae28@riseup.net> References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190326131844.C73EC209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87imw4fuee.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2aso7zh.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87mulg2whj.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rG5CWl6aPo8nZY0CaEoqXNZcVf6Clybj5" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9rWl-0000Wc-DE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:26:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9rWk-0004rt-9c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:26:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87mulg2whj.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --rG5CWl6aPo8nZY0CaEoqXNZcVf6Clybj5 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="daMeblzkkKI5npq2R22o85Xt1CnV5XxVP"; protected-headers="v1" From: swedebugia To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt , =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= Message-ID: <5476d986-6fd3-cfa3-fc11-c3a82088ae28@riseup.net> Subject: Re: 05/15: gnu: wesnoth: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth. References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190326131844.C73EC209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87imw4fuee.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2aso7zh.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87mulg2whj.fsf@elephly.net> In-Reply-To: <87mulg2whj.fsf@elephly.net> --daMeblzkkKI5npq2R22o85Xt1CnV5XxVP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019-03-27 16:00, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >=20 > Pierre wrote: >> Finally, as I mentioned above with the completion systems that we have= , >> we've got nothing to lose in having long names. Reading the arguments of Ricardo I changed my mind and support keeping the variable names short. >=20 > swedebugia wrote: >> Good useability is important and cryptic acronyms are not something to= >> expose to the user if possible to avoid IMO. >=20 >> Maybe this is where we need to discuss what our target audience is? >> Nerds only? [=E2=80=A6] >=20 > This is a false dichotomy, in my opinion. Good usability is not at odd= s > with using short package names. I also think that the length of packag= e > names is not going to be a deciding factor for somebody who is not a > =E2=80=9Cnerd=E2=80=9D, so let=E2=80=99s not go down this tangent pleas= e. There are different > interfaces to package managers, and we=E2=80=99re currently not offerin= g fully > functional interfaces that would be more suitable for people without a > =E2=80=9Ctechie=E2=80=9D background. If you want to make Guix more acc= essible *that=E2=80=99s* > a screw to turn, not the length of package names. Thanks for sharing this. I regret having written this as a dichotomy. I'm actually very happy with guix overall and the guix-web frontend is awesome. :) I'm sorry if I added tension to this discussion. I will try expressing myself less confrontationally going forward. >=20 > Completion should not be used as an excuse to use long package names. > For one, not everyone is using Bash, so not everyone benefits from our > Bash completions. (Some shells can reuse Bash completions but this doe= s > not invalidate the point.) I agree. >=20 > The package name is just an identifier for command line interaction > purposes. There is no reason why it should be descriptive =E2=80=93 af= ter all, > that=E2=80=99s what the package description is used for. Users can eas= ily find > the package they are interested in by using the search feature. That > will give them the short name by which they can refer to the package. > Having that short name be long serves little purpose. I agree. Would you agree that we try to strike a compromise with short package variable names, synopsis' and longer descriptions? Should we state this clearly in the documentation for packagers? I guess a GUI-search would work like guix-web and search all three for hits and displaying the results. --=20 Cheers Swedebugia --daMeblzkkKI5npq2R22o85Xt1CnV5XxVP-- --rG5CWl6aPo8nZY0CaEoqXNZcVf6Clybj5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQR6IWNlOiLn9hD6a1XPzUNbKAts0gUCXJ4dYAAKCRDPzUNbKAts 0td7APwK+S6MAAAhM7MJrr9EqNkB0YNCCSdu+xWCcj8oZUPBDwD/VpMM3oezuhUu LlCLAS8zSrVRBlmO1y5qkMqC8ndgJg8= =/VOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rG5CWl6aPo8nZY0CaEoqXNZcVf6Clybj5--