On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100 > > "Michael ." <keltoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing > >> >live-config > >> and > >> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into > >> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but > >> >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these > >> >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative > >> >manner. > >> > >> Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity > >> would verify that. > > > > No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package > > namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be > > consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion. > > live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The > > name is appropriate. > > Obviously, several users don't agree with you. There's a conflict of > interest in the naming of your new package, which confuse established > users base of live-build. live-build-ng isn't a drop in replacement of > live-build, or live-build deprecated in any way (except its usage by > Debian CD team).
I do agree that naming something $foo-ng indeed sends a very strong, even if implicit, message about $foo, which is not the case here. On the other hand, there is no good reason why this new tool _needs_ to be called live-build-ng, so can you please call it something else? -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
