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

[Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org>]

On 2024-10-17 16:50, Christian Kastner wrote:
>>     - 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

Eh, I forgot that we will probably also ship a Makefile with some global
definitions to be used by other packages.

I performed a more thorough check and not it's not just kde -- there are
also pkg-{js,perl,haskell,php}-tools.

Thus, I'll name the binary pkg-rocm-tools.

>        $ 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-?

I think I'll just go with rocm- and if conflicts arise, I'll rename our
utilities.

Best,
Christian