For Python, we call this python-unversioned-command. Also, in many cases, the thing in question might be a script and not a "binary", so the term unversioned-binary might be confusing.

For Python, we call this python-unversioned-command. Also, in many cases, the thing in question might be a script and not a "binary", so the term unversioned-binary might be confusing.

My mistake, it is indeed 'command' not 'binary'

I wish there was something less cumbersome than "-unversioned-command" but I can't think of anything and it is at least completely descriptive of the contents of the package. The only change I can suggest is that "should" be capitalized to match the convention we've mostly tried to keep in the rest of the document. (I see five instances where "should" is not capitalized and 41 instances where it is.)

It still says "unversioned binaries" in the section title and text.

I think this text concentrates too much on the specific case and is in effect too long. The sentence that is the second paragraphs says pretty much all that needs to be said.

It still says "unversioned binaries" in the section title and text.

'Unversioned command' as title would be more appropriate?

I think this text concentrates too much on the specific case and is in effect too long. The sentence that is the second paragraphs says pretty much all that needs to be said.

I hear you, it is a bit wordy, but I still want to provide at least some context, IMHO some other topics are either lack context or send you to another article completely. I would like to be somewhere in the middle..

How about -exe as an executable?

You could use -cmd as a short version of -command.

I reduced paragraph and changed it to -unversioned-cmd. Still not sure we need this, lets vote?

I don't like this. We are creating a rule that does not reflect reality.

I'm not sure I even like using the "-unversioned-command" / "-unversioned-cmd" suffix for this. The only place where it's used right now is Python, and there it cannot be used to swap the provider of the unversioned command there, so this would create false expectations IMO.

What about standardizing something like node-is-node24 or node-is-24? It's a little cutesy, but maybe it's less confusing than the -bin suffix?

For the record we are also neutral on this. I opened this one because someone pointed it is confusing and wanted to see Fedora opinion on this.

So far feedback was 'eh' so I will be closing this. Thank you for attention to this matter.