Re: Should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli? (was Re: Octave & QtOctave)

[Brett Gilio <brettg@posteo.net>]

Alex Vong writes:

> ng0@n0.is writes:
>
>> names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some
>> cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...).
>>
> I am thinking that should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to
> octave-cli (or octave-minimal)?
>
> Firstly, a new user wanting to install octave will probably do the
> obvious "guix package -i octave", but currently this command will do the
> counter-intuitive thing of installing the non-gui version of
> octave. Instead, they will have to install qtoctave to get the gui. I am
> in favour of making a package to support as many features as possible,
> while also making a minimal version for building other packages (or
> users who desn't want a gui). An example would be emacs vs
> emacs-minimal.
>
> Secondly, I suggest to name the minimal version as "octave-cli" because
> this is what the octave binary (the command-line only version) is
> called. Also, running "guix package -A '-cli$'" shows some of the
> existing packages also follow similar naming convention (I don't know it
> they have a corresponding gui version though).
>
> What do others think?
>
> Cheers,
> Alex

I am in favor of this idea:
Octave && Octave Minimal

Brett