On January 15, 2017 12:35:57 PM EST, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 04:34:40PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >I fully agree with your generic name consideration. The software is >> >well known in this work field anyway so I'm hesitating a bit to >rename >> >it. Would you consider this a strong issue that needs to be >discussed >> >with upstream or is it in a "not nice but acceptable" status? >> >> I think it should be discussed with upstream, but we have broader >namespace considerations that they may not understand or care about. > >Definitely. > >> As long as a package search for freebayes returns this in the result >set, I don't think it's critical to have the package name match exactly >the upstream name. > >Do you care only about the *package* name or do you care as well about >the name binary /usr/bin/freebayes?
I think they are both important. Scott K >> Not wearing my FTP team hat for this, consider it as a comment from >another DD. > >Both is welcome. > >Kind regards > > Andreas.
