Top-level package names, UX questions

Mark Shuttleworth mark at
Mon Mar 16 22:31:53 UTC 2015

On 16/03/15 15:15, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Looking at the 'foo.command' bit on its own...
> Not sure if you meant this all along, but I wonder if it makes sense to say
> after installing a developer package (eg, beuno's foo package) that:
>  * you can always refer to the command as foo.beuno.command
>  * you may also refer to the command as foo.command
>  * if you install another developer's foo package, you have a choice of updating
>    what foo.command does
> That way you can always you foo.beuno.command in your scripts if you want, but
> you still can use the shortened version.

The problem is it conflates your custom idea of what foo.command means
with the public, community view of what foo.command is. And that will
just be painful.

I think we either say:

 * you can co-install foo.beuno and foo.jamie and mainline foo
 * you must use them explicitly as foo.beuno.command and
foo.jaimie.command and foo.command


 * you can only install one foo at a time (choose foo.beuno or foo.jamie)
 * you must use it as foo.command

While the latter requires choices and decisions, it forces convergence
over time and is always more readable. We would rename as needed between
LTS versions, or during devel between them, but not inside an LTS lifetime.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the snappy-devel mailing list