This is the mail archive of the
docbook-tools-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the docbook-tools project.
Re: docbook2* vs db2*
- To: "David C. Mason" <dcm at redhat dot com>, docbook-tools-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: docbook2* vs db2*
- From: Eric Bischoff <ebisch at cybercable dot tm dot fr>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:14:39 +0200
- References: <ybbzomm1im9.fsf@chelseafc.labs.redhat.com>
"David C. Mason" wrote:
>
> Is there any reason why all of a sudden the tools are using docbook2*
> instead of db2*?
Yes:
- confusion and possible conflicts with IBM's DB2
- if you want a really short name, use "jw" (Jade Wrapper).
- if you want a name that is "speaking", use "docbook2*"
- if you really miss the old name, you can always wrap it in
your own shell script
- with Tab auto-completion, having an explicit name isn't
really a problem
jw foo.docbook == docbook2html foo.docbook
jw -b ps foo.docbook == docbook2ps foo.docbook
etc...
> Wouldn't it be *much* easier if it remained db2* so
> that people who have been using the DB Tools for a long time will
> understand how to use the new set of tools 'out of the box'?
Well, with such an explanation, it shouldn't be *too*
difficult to adapt ;-).
> Did I miss a thread about this already?
No, you didn't.
If there is really strong popular pressure for db2* names,
we can move back, but having both docbook2* and db2* would
be bloating /usr/bin, according to me.
--
Éric Bischoff - mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
__________________________________________________
\^o~_.
.~. ______ /( __ )
/V\ Toys story \__ \/ ( V
// \\ \__| (__=v
/( )\ |\___/ )
^^-^^ \_____( )
Tux Konqui \__=v
__________________________________________________