Name #34
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
After reading bonsai/repo#18 I realized
coreutilsas a package may conflict with a certain incredibly popular (GNU) project with the same name.Maybe the name should be changed so as to avoid confusion? In conversations with Emma I've suggested bonutils, which makes sense to me because of the Latin root bon (good, i.e. bonus which means "good" in Latin and from which the identical English adjective draws heritage).
“coreutils” is short for core utilities which is the common name for the basic set of userspace utilities needed for a system to run.
https://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/coreutils
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Core_utilities
That's true but using a generic name is perilous when the den is occupied by a giant. Consider uutils, which is packaged as a great variety of names which must be pretty inconvenient for users of multiple systems who have to either (1) look up and (2) install the package with their package manager, or (1) find that list and (2) install the package on their system, versus GNU coreutils users who can simply (1) install
coreutilswhich is the same basically everywhere. Busybox, as a multi-call binary, avoids this because the project itself is the core utilities and tooling, so it gets away with beingbusybox.Additionally, packaging the Bonsai coreutils as
coreutilson Bonsai systems breaks a comfortable assumption thatcoreutilsmeans the GNU core utilities collection, and wishing this to be done elsewhere brings a similarly unintuitive pattern to the existing sufferers of GNU+Linux. Even if the game is won and the (for our purposes) ideal scenario of Bonsai's coreutils displacing GNU's occurs, existing systems that rely oncoreutilsbeing GNU coreutils will have to migrate and it'll be a small but regular hassle.My point is that naming Bonsai coreutils
coreutilswill lead to unpredictable packaging and there is no way to avoid this except to rename them to something less generic, either by placing the coreutils under a separate project with its own name (which I don't believe is a good option) or renaming the coreutils themselves.And for me personally it is easier to imagine the displacement of humans upon the Earth than to imagine the displacement of GNU coreutils within computer systems.
If you can bring me a good name that isn’t bonutils then I will consider it.
Preferably it should be something that tells users what these tools are.
for the record, uutils is packaged that way because it changed names from rust-coreutils to uutils-coreutils at some point in the past.
What about toolset?
Or rootutils?
This sounds specifically related to root user tools
Specifically against this because of
broot.Agreed. If that name is to be used at all, it should only be for a subset of tools for system administration.
butils?toolchest?
toolchest sounds a lot like toybox. butils is alright but generic - it could be confused with sutils.
saitools
bonsaibox
shears - the tools you use with a bonsai
interfaceoops
interface makes sense and is neat but sounds too similar (to me) to a network interface.
What about userface? For user-facing utilities? Kinda silly but I kinda like it.
userface has a nice ring to it. What about sapwood? The userland utilities are the wrapper around the core (the kernel; if we ever make our own we can call it heartwood).
These also have the issue of not necessarily being descriptive to an end use about what exactly this repository or package is.