GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 767256
Please rename /usr/bin/ide to something less generic
Last modified: 2016-06-05 21:18:13 UTC
gnome-builder 3.19.4 introduced a /usr/bin/ide command. Please refrain from using generic names for something that is specific to the GNOME desktop environment. This caused a release-critical bug in Debian which has a package for the Ecere SDK who made the same mistake and include /usr/bin/ide. It is against Debian policy for different programs to ship the same file with different functionality in the default $PATH.
http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/en/man1/ide.1.html https://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/ecere-dev/filelist
Distributions need to have policy on how to deal with this. It is unreasonable to expect every piece of software in the world to have unique names for everything.
(In reply to Christian Hergert from comment #2) > Distributions need to have policy on how to deal with this. It is > unreasonable to expect every piece of software in the world to have unique > names for everything. Sure, Debian's policy is that gnome-builder must rename /usr/bin/ide to something else since ecere-sdk was packaged first. This policy also protects your interests. As long as gnome-builder is packaged in Debian, no other software in the official Debian repositories can install itself to /usr/bin/gnome-builder. What's so unreasonable about /usr/bin/gnome-ide?
(In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #3) > What's so unreasonable about /usr/bin/gnome-ide? I want a quick 3-letter command similar to say, git. Our goal is to make all of the IDE features of Builder available to command-line users in vim/emacs/pico/nano/etc. Since there are only so many useful 3 letter acronyms available, and the chance of overlap between ecere and Builder users is so unlikely, my preference is to have the packages conflict. However, if someone can come up with a pleasant alternative, I'd consider it. So far I've only come up with `die'.
is 4 letters OK? I would propose "gide" then. In debian (and then ubuntu) we'll have to rename the executable to something else, I would definitively prefer this to be coordinated with you
gbdo is also available (short for "gnome-builder do"). On Fedora, you can check a name with `dnf provides`. On Debian or Ubuntu, you can install apt-file and run `apt-file search`.
(In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #6) > On Fedora, you can check a name with `dnf provides`. We use `ide' on Fedora, arch, openSUSE, etc. I still don't follow what is wrong with simply having the packages conflict.
Ok, I guess that means we'll remove gnome-builder from Debian then if you don't have any interest in it being distributed.
(In reply to Michael Biebl from comment #8) > Ok, I guess that means we'll remove gnome-builder from Debian then if you > don't have any interest in it being distributed. That is a gross miss-representation of my viewpoint. There is no need to simply take your ball and go home because I don't understand the semantics of Debian's policy. What I'm trying understand, is if having packages conflict is or is not possible by the policy (without having to go read it myself).
The biggest problem with just having the packages conflict is that it causes a major problem for a user who want to install both packages.
(In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #10) > The biggest problem with just having the packages conflict is that it causes > a major problem for a user who want to install both packages. I'd like to understand if this is the only problem (by policy, convention, etc). Because we are talking about, almost certainly, zero (or single digit) number of people here that will want to have both and use both. And as such, this would seem reasonable given there is no expectation in Debian (afaik) that you can install 100% of Debian packages on a single system at the same time.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts : > Be aware that adding Conflicts is normally not the best solution when two packages provide the same files. Depending on the reason for that conflict, using alternatives or renaming the files is often a better approach I don't think that using alternatives here is a good idea, both "ide" executables are not serving the same purpose. Also it's a general habit to not expect our user workflow. A bug about this has been explicitly reported to debian (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824517) so at least one person seems to care
(In reply to Christian Hergert from comment #9) > (In reply to Michael Biebl from comment #8) > > Ok, I guess that means we'll remove gnome-builder from Debian then if you > > don't have any interest in it being distributed. > > That is a gross miss-representation of my viewpoint. There is no need to > simply take your ball and go home because I don't understand the semantics > of Debian's policy. That's got nothing to do specifically to Debian. Choosing a generic name like ide is simply an egoistic and stupid idea, and insisting it has to be a three letter word even more so. I'm annoyed because you don't see that as a problem and imho are not really willing to fix this situation, seeing your reaction to close it as "Fixed". I mean, come on, if every software developer behaved like that and insisted on a 3 letter name, we'd run out of options pretty quick.
see the reaction in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=826352#15 how this is handled in a professional way.
(In reply to Michael Biebl from comment #13) > That's got nothing to do specifically to Debian. Choosing a generic name > like ide is simply an egoistic and stupid idea, and insisting it has to be a > three letter word even more so. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them egotistical and their ideas stupid. > I'm annoyed because you don't see that as a > problem and imho are not really willing to fix this situation, seeing your > reaction to close it as "Fixed". I closed WONTFIX (someone else changed the status) and the reasoning was because two weeks ago we had an hour-long discussion about it on IRC and that is what I thought the outcome was (to conflict). > see the reaction in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=826352#15 how this is handled in a professional way. I've been polite and shared my viewpoint without insults, yet I'm called egotistical and stupid because I didn't agree with you. The ecere author is quite magnanimous here and I appreciate that. As previously stated, I'm still willing to change the name of the cli tool if we can some up with something good. Either way, we are looking at 3.22 timeframe for that in a release (come fall).
(In reply to Christian Hergert from comment #15) > (In reply to Michael Biebl from comment #13) > > That's got nothing to do specifically to Debian. Choosing a generic name > > like ide is simply an egoistic and stupid idea, and insisting it has to be a > > three letter word even more so. > > Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them egotistical > and their ideas stupid. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you are egoistical and you are stupid. If that is how it came across, then I apologize. This was not my intent. I still think though that naming something ide is indeed stupid. It's not a particular good name either in this specific case. I mean the CLI tool is not an IDE in the classical meaning at all.
(In reply to Michael Biebl from comment #16) > As previously stated, I'm still willing to change the name of the cli tool > if we can some up with something good. Either way, we are looking at 3.22 > timeframe for that in a release (come fall). If you are open to change the name, then please reopen this bug report again.
Renamed `ide' to `gnome-builder-cli' in commit 12b366b8f7915b7acc2b7c2d9fa22c31e5b59af5. This will be part of future 3.21.x development releases, and ultimately ship as part of 3.22.0.
(In reply to Christian Hergert from comment #18) > Renamed `ide' to `gnome-builder-cli' in commit > 12b366b8f7915b7acc2b7c2d9fa22c31e5b59af5. > > This will be part of future 3.21.x development releases, and ultimately ship > as part of 3.22.0. Thank you.