Re: Re: news item: Introduction of app-alternatives/coreutils
moltonel 3x Combo <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.gentoo.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANQow5+MCapH+k40ViBy3sWFrb0SCzVt+iBW9NbayO_ciKGzPA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 at 15:01, Ulrich Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just went with `g*` as suggested in the original bug report, but we > > could easily use `g-*` or `gnu*` or `gnu-*` to be a bit more unique. > > Neither of these are very distinctive names, given that both coreutils > and uutils-coreutils describe themselves as "GNU coreutils". You seem to be playing the devil's advocate. That's not how the projects (or the ebuilds) describe themselves. Nobody would be confused by gnu-foo, thinking that it comes from uutils. It's a very distinctive name, I don't think the suffix version improves on that. If you feel your /usr/bin has too many "gfoo" binaries, another option is USE=multicall. That way all the symlinks will point to the same gcoreutils (or uu-coreutils) binary.