Re: RFS: googlecl (now uploaded to mentors repo)
On 06/19/2010 08:36 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 14:13, Umang Varma <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2010 02:37 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:00, Umang Varma <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> First, Google seems to have it's own Debian package  and it hasn't
>> made the source of that package available.
> at least "33 hours ago" from now they released a tarball. it wasn't
> there at the time the RFS was went.
> source package was on mentors.d.n, surely it could have been released
> on code.g.c too.
Oops. I didn't realize that the person sending the RFS was a upstream
co-author, so I didn't make that connection. My fault.
>> Secondly, Google itself wants the bin to be called `google`.  Since
>> the official project page  and documentation  says `$ google foo
>> bar`, making end-users call `$ googlecl foo bar` may confuse them.
> it wouldn't be the first time we rename an upstream exec because too
> generic. Should we not doing this because big-G is so big and have
> nice tool?
No. Not at all. I didn't mean it that way. I had imagined that if Google
themselves want a tool named google, they don't expect to make another
tool with a conflicting name. If google made a tool called `music` that
played music, I would certainly say it's too generic.
I understand your point though - Debian can't blindly let Google choose
what the google bin on Debian will do and just because Google made a
tool called google does not mean Debian should call it Google. I now agree.
> Also note that the ultimate decision will be done by ftp-masters, but
> I still consider 'google' too generic
>> Particularly so if they use something like the Ubuntu Software Center
>> (which is the default newbie's package manager on Debian as `gnome` now
>> depends on it) where they're unlikely to read the description - if at
>> all the description is allowed to have such a warning.
> well, we can't write tools that are completely newbie-proof, no matter
> how many checks and things you put in them.
>> PS: I am subscribed to email@example.com, so no need to CC me. :-)
You may have read that too quickly. I *am* subscribed.
> "Along with a standard tarball, we have a .deb package ready for
> download, and hope to have it included in Debian and Ubuntu
> repositories in time for their next releases"
Oops, I missed that. Again, I didn't realize that the OP was a co-author.
> probably some more work on the debian package and less marketing would
> have had the package already in NEW queue ;)