On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:39:41AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Jun 24, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:31:53PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > > > Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Package: wnpp > > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > > > * Package name : r-noncran-design > > > > Version : 1.1.6 > > > > Upstream Author : Frank Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * URL : http://hesweb1.med.virginia.edu/biostat/rms > > > > * License : GPL > > > > Description : Regression modeling strategies > > > > > > > > Design is one of two packages by Frank Harrell and requires the other, > > > > Hmisc. > > > > Design provides the code supporting Harrell's 2002 book on 'Regression > > > > Modeling Strategies'. I intend to stick with the convention of calling > > > > the > > > > (Debian) source package the same as the (source) R package -- design -- > > > > but > > > > then normalizing on r-noncran-design as done by prior packages > > > > maintained by > > > > Chris Lawrence and myself. > > > > > > > I think that 'design' is, also as a source package name, way too > > > generic. You can't in any way defer what this source package is > > > about... The same applies (but not as much) to hmisc, IMHO. Why not > > > name the source packages the same as the binary packages? > > > > a) Transparency, so 'name it the same as upstream'. CRAN packages have their > > own little conventions and infrastructure. IMHO we gain little by adding > > another layer of complexity. > > > > b) Precedence. We already have 7 or 8 R add-on packages. Several of > > these do the same thing. In fact, mine do -- whereas Chris > > Lawrence's don't. Doug Bates plans to release some too. Some > > uniformity would be good. > > Well, to clarify, r-noncran-lindsey is a bit of a special case > (combining half a dozen upstream packages in a bundle), and the source
Right, I had concentrated on coda and mcmcpack which are also more recent. > package name r-cran-coda was used because there's already a coda in > experimental. The source for r-cran-mcmcpack is simply mcmcpack; of My bad, I thought I had checked coda and mcmcpack, maybe I didn't look to closely at mcmcpack. Sorry! > course, upstream is MCMCpack. My tendency (thought process) has been > to use upstream's name unless it's horribly generic or there's an > existing conflict. Fully agreed. Now, the discussion is of course following a trademark Debian pattern: it is academic. We have no existing source 'design'. If I take the name, _and_ another future packages desires the name, I can still rename it. Big deal. > I really don't think the source package name matters that much. > However, if there's a realistic chance of a conflict coming up with > something more generic, I'd prefix with r- or r-cran- or r-noncran-; > by that criterion, hmisc seems ok for Hmisc, but maybe r-design or > r-noncran-design would be better for Design's source. Well, Harrell uses 'rms' as the acronym for Regression Modeling Strategies, his excellent Springer book. So why don't I use "rms-design"? Oh, wait, ... Upstream is best, really. AFAIK we only really have a few conflicts, despite three decades of 'open' Unix code. Some of these are obvious for computers: calc vs apcalc. I still like going with design. Dirk -- Don't drink and derive. Alcohol and analysis don't mix.
