Re: Rename GNU fdisk to GUILE diskutils

[Christian Brunello]

Sorry for the delay.

Freja Nordsiek writes:

> I mostly agree with David Pirotte here. For a program, it is not always 
> relevant what it is implemented in except if it is meant to go with several 
> other programs (say it is part of a framework). Now, for an all new program, 
> mentioning what it is implemented in in the name is a reasonable choice. 
> Changing the name of a program to do it is a bit different circumstance.

Also I agree, I find it wrong to, for example, call a package "c-name", or 
"c++-name"
if it is not a library for that specific language.

> However, there is a major catch in this situation. Christian Brunello 
> mentioned in the first email, if I read it correctly, that there are plans 
> and intentions to extend it beyond just fdisk. Then renaming to something 
> like [something] diskutils makes a lot of sense. If it is just a bunch of 
> programs we get back to the argument earlier about including guile in the 
> name or not. However, if those plans for extension include libraries and/or 
> packages for use by other 3rd party programs, then the implementation 
> possibly matters a lot. If this is part of the plan, then Guile Diskutils is 
> a fairly reasonable name in my opinion. I really hope this is in the plan, by 
> the way. There are a lot of interesting things that could lead to.

Yes, this is my idea: Create a package containing several tools for disk
administration. All tools are written in scheme and use libparted
through a guile extension (this extension is part of the
package). Installing this package will not only add programs to the
administration, but with the GUILE extension we will be able to
administer the disks directly in the scheme language (with a script or
GUILE shell).

-- 
Christian Brunello