On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote: > While I agree that preserving namespace is an important goal, I > think it should be balanced against the goal of making packages > discoverable by users.
I agree; however, I think this is best accomplished by including the upstream name in the package name (so it shows up in apt-cache search) or in the cases where the language policy says otherwise, in the description, so it also shows up in apt-cache search. > As an example, one of the packages I maintain is known upstream as > pyspf. The Debian python naming requirement for the binary is > python-spf. In this example, the Description of python-spf should include something like "Also known as pyspf". [I should note that naming the source pyspf doesn't really help with the discoverability of python-spf, as apt-cache search does not search the Source: field... this is why apt-cache search pyspf doesn't return python-spf, but returns spf-tools-python.] > Whatever rule you come up with, I don't think it's one size fits > all. I'm perfectly ok with specific exceptions to the rule, or even ending up with a guideline that can be ignored when DDs decide that it's ok. Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120215224216.gs15...@rzlab.ucr.edu
