On Monday, January 16, 2017 05:37:45 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I think the package name should indicate the field for which it is > > > meant (freebayes-genetic-variance), > > > > At least its good to know that ftpmaster is reading here to not accept > > previously uploaded package wis unchanged name. ;-) > > > > I'm fine with changing that one and will ask on Debian Med name whether > > above suggestion sounds good. > > When discussing the issue with a Debian Med sprint member I've got other > good reasons to even keep the package name despite the fact that its > quite generic. When looking outside the Debian box other distributions > might package the same software at best under the original name since > they are not that picky about generic names and at worst under different > names which would add more confusion than a less generic name might > avoid. > > Furthermore there is some effort called bio.tools[1] (members of this > effort regularly joining Debian Med sprints) who are very keen on all > the metadata that are assembled with Debian packages and can be easily > fetched from UDD. They consider taking the Debian Source package name > as a key in their database. While I'm personally not convinced that > this is the best idea we probably should not artificially diverge from > names that would be expceted by potential consumers of our data. > > Finally when doing a websearch for freebayes the said project is the > first hit which might be a further arguent to stick to the name that was > choosen by upstream.
OK. Would you at least discuss it with upstream? Scott K
