On 06/13/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t >> care” from before). >> >> I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving >> at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it >> "python-bash8"? > > Yes, this is what will happen. > >> Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) >> should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” >> could be separate from the packaging / project name. > > If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to > carry patches which I'd have to maintain. > >> Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure >> bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that >> really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? > > Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the > Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import. > So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz. > >> I just don’t >> see how if we don’t namespace collide on the executable side, how there >> can be any real confusion (python-bash8, sure pypi is a little >> different) over what is being installed. > > The problem is that bash8 doesn't express anything but "bash version 8", > unless you know pep8.
Impinging on the bash namespace is something I'll almost buy, except
that bash never ships with a version number.
I'd be vaguely ameniable to renaming the package/binary to bashate,
which is pronounced the same, but doesn't have the same namespacing
problem. Will talk with Matt Odden about it today.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
