Re: sox -> sox_ng?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

I guess the big questions are:

  Given sox_ng, would anyone want to use sox?  Seems like sox_ng's
  opinion is "no".

  What does sox_ng think that packages should be called?  They are
  calling it sox_ng, not just saying sox, so it sounds like the repo,
  the package are sox_ng.  And, the installed files are play_ng.  The
  command name change surprises me.

  Do the sox_ng people expect sox-depending projects to search for and
  use foo_ng instead?

  You say "replace", but it sounds like "repoint any pkg that depends on
  sox, and when complete, remove sox".

  What are other packaging systems doing about naming/superceding?


reading sox_ng:

  Replacing sox is optional

  sox_ng installs as sox_ng, {soxi,play,rec}_ng, sox_ng.h,
  libsox_ng.{a,la,so}, sox_ng.pc and similarly for the manual pages but
  if you ./configure --enable-replace it also makes links sox, play,
  sox.h and so on so that other programs find what they are used to.

  According to your distro's norms, you may prefer to enable these links
  and make it supplant the original sox (a "conflicting alternative") or
  you may prefer to use your distro's "alternatives" mechanism so that
  users can choose which to use.

so maybe we should turn that on.

I lean to keeping the package name as sox_ng.