svn commit: r40000 - projects/pkgng/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:19:53 pm Glen Barber wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:24:01AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:13:49 pm Glen Barber wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:05:54PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > > > Isn't the actual application just "pkg"?  It's unclear to what extent we 
> > > > really need to be talking about pkgng using the string "pkgng".
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The name of the application is pkgng.  The name of the command is pkg.
> > 
> > This is not a very future proof name.  Do we get pkgngng next, or will it be 
> > pkgds9?  I think pkgng is fine for a WIP name, but once it moves to production 
> > status it should really just be called 'pkg'.
> > 
> 
> In my view, the differentation made here can be equated to OpenOffice.
> For example, the name of the application (as a whole) is OpenOffice, but
> the name of the program for writing a document file is Writer.

That's fine, but it's not "New Office" or "New New Office".  It's specifically
the "ng" part of the name that I think is not suitable for long-term use.
 
> We also have things like "syslogng", that has been around forever.

Just because they named their software poorly doesn't mean we have to.

-- 
John Baldwin