reopen 253511 reassign 253511 developers-reference severity 253511 wishlist tags 253511 - wontfix retitle 253511 "provide guideline to keep the package namespace sane" thanks
Hi, Thanks for cleaning up BTS. I agree with the rationale of Russ on closing this bug. As I look back, this old bug report should have been a wishlist bug to developers-reference since it is "Best Practice" issue. What I proposed does not fit with Policy but it is something mentioned as a guide line. I know this problem is addressed via WNPP process described in 5.1. There is a link to http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html: There, 2nd reason for rejection is listed as: * trying to keep the package namespace sane, But it goes only to define in the later table as: Package name Use the right package names. A lib should start with lib, a perl module with lib and end with -perl, etc The contents in REJECT-FAQ is reasonable since it is "Policy" like strong statement. But for the sake of better usability, we should recommend some guideline in developers-reference. I mean something along what I proposed before for Policy 3.1 is needed to be added to developers-reference 5.1. Osamu On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:06PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > #253511: [PROPOSAL] clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..." > It has been closed by Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > -- > 253511: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253511 > From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Rejected: Bug#253511: clarify "package must have a name that's > unique ..." > To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:52:17 -0700 > > This is a proposal to add some standards to Policy for how packages should > be named to avoid short package names or names that are more common than > the package deserves (camera, terminal, etc.). > > The proposal was discussed briefly in 2004 and then the discussion died > without proposed wording or apparent consensus. > > This topic is still discussed from time to time on debian-devel, but it's > difficult to write a Policy provision that incorporates the various > common-sense guidelines that go into good package names. My belief is > that public review on debian-devel with the possible intervention of > ftpmaster where necessary is preferrable to trying to codify rules for > package naming in Policy. > > For that reason, plus lack of consensus, I am rejecting this proposal. > This is a soft rejection, meaning that if someone feels strongly about > this proposal and wants to step forward to champion it again, I'd be > willing to reopen the bug. > > -- > Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > > From: Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..." > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:46:30 +0200 > > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.6.1.0 > Severity: normal > > Currently policy states: > > |3.1. The package name > |--------------------- > | > | Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian > | archive. > | > | The package name is included in the control field `Package', the > | format of which is described in Section 5.6.6, ``Package''. The > | package name is also included as a part of the file name of the `.deb' > | file. > > Here there is no restriction for the package name being *sane*. > > On the other hand, "3.2. The version of a package" has > ... > | If an upstream package has problematic version numbers they should be > | converted to a sane form for use in the `Version' field. > ^^^^ > > This gives a good ground for not choosing bad version naming. > > Most of us think that keeping *unique* name requires the choice of > package name to be *sane* :) (Yes, I know a gnustep application > packager disagreed.) > > We need to clarify the position of Debian on 3.1. > > Let me propose: > > |3.1. The package name > |--------------------- > | > | Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian > | archive. > | > | The package name is included in the control field `Package', the > | format of which is described in Section 5.6.6, ``Package''. The > | package name is also included as a part of the file name of the `.deb' > | file. > | > + If an upstream package has problematic name they should be converted > + to a sane form for use in the `Package' field. > + > +3.1.1. Package name guidelines > +------------------------------ > + Use of common sense to avoid name space pollution of package names > + are encouraged. The package name should be longer than 4 > + characters and should not use generic words. Use of prefix to > + identify name a group of softwares which are applicable only for > + the subset of the Debian environment is encouraged. Some > + traditional popular programs may be exempted from these restriction. > > I welcome better English but I think I made my intent clear with above. > I think that the choice of command name should follow similar restriction. > > NB: (Here is more of my thoughts ...) > > I am not expecting this to be strictly applied from Sarge. This is > to quiet future flame war on package name for post-Sarge. > > I see no problem with followings as package name: > * at > * m4 > * mc > * dc > * gs > * lv (Maybe because I am Japanese) > * nvi > * g++ > * gcc > * ftp > * inn > * lpr > * ppp > * ssh > * screen > > There are 51 packages with 2 characters and there are 356 packages with > 3 characters already. (unstable/main) Here are 2 character package > names: > > af an at bb bc bl cu cw dc di dx e3 ed ee es fv gb gq gs gv ht hx im > kq le lv m4 mc mp nd ne nn pi pv qe qm rc re ri sc sl sn sp tf ud vh > vm wl wv xt yh > > I doubt how many packages of these deserve to use 2 character name > space. > > I want to see following proposed/existing package names are changed: > > * camara --> gnustep-camera > * latexservice --> gnustep-latexservice > * terminal --> gnustep-terminal > * connect --> gnustep-connect > ... > > (Here I do not care prefix being gnustep- or gnustep-client- ) > > Generic words may be used for virtual package names if needed. > > If anyone has better way to stop nonsense package names, I will be > open for suggestion. > > -- System Information: ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
