Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

"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
 __________________________________________________