Re: RFC: Upload of our utilities to the main archive

[Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org>]

Hi,

here the final bikeshedding before an upload to the official Archive:

On 2024-10-11 16:55, Christian Kastner wrote:
>   src:rocm-dev-tools [2] with binary packages

First, I'd rename this to pkg-rocm-tools, unless anyone objects.

These utilities have general use, but the primary users (at least
initially) will be package maintainers, and consistency with the
pkg-kde-tools seems nice.

>     - bin:rocm-qemu-support, shipping utilities:
>         $ rocm-qemu-setup
>         $ rocm-qemu-create
>         $ rocm-qemu-run
>         + an autopkgtest-virt-qemu+rocm backend
>     - bin:rocm-podman-support, shipping utilities:
>         $ rocm-podman-setup
>         $ rocm-podman-create
>         $ rocm-podman-run
>         + an autopkgtest-virt-podman+rocm backend

To the above packages, I'd add
   - bin:rocm-testhelper
       $ rocm-testhelper
     suggests: rocm-podman-setup | rocm-qemu-setup

I'm a bit torn about both bin:package names and utility names.

Can the rocm- prefix lead to confusion with upstream tools, or is it
clear enough from the package descriptions that these are Debian tools?
I'd hate for `rocm-qemu-create` or `rocm-testhelper` reports to be filed
against ROCm upstream's GitHub.

Is this a problem? If so, what would be a better alternative prefix?
pkg-rocm-? rocm-team-?

Best,
Christian