On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:57:02AM +0100, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
>
> > Hmmmm, ftpmaster was fast - now python-jellyfish is accepted. This only
> > leaves us option 2 without fiddling around to much.
>
> I noticed - and feels like yet another argument in favour of option 2.
That's a good wording. :-)
> If there is something I can do to help with the renaming of the DNA
> jellyfish python module (collaborating on the upstream repository,
> gathering more opinions on the matter, or anything else) I'd be willing
> to lend a hand, just let me know!
I think if we did not managed a sufficient amount of opinions once there
was a good time to react I think it is a waste of time if you try
afterwards. I learned in Free Software that asking for opinion is
really hard - even if naming discussions usually gather a fair amount of
opinions (keyword bike shedding). The best way is to do something. So
either you tell me: "I'm not happy with the current situation and I'll
send you a patch that renames the DNA jellyfish" - I'd be positive to
aks ftpmaster to let the package pass again the Debian new queue. This
should be done *quickly* before people might adapt to the new package.
If you do not do this we should simply live with the current situation.
> > The latter sounds sensible. Sorry for all the confusion and leaving you
> > alone a bit with this issue.
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the package renaming issue, and no
> worries at all - I really apreciate your guidance and efforts on helping
> move this issue forward.
You are welcome
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
