Bug#919951:
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Note that this ocaml tool `dune' was previously known as `jbuilder'.
> It has nothing to do with Java AIUI.
The term ‘jbuilder’ came from the fact that the project originated as
an internal build tool at Jane Street, which was then subsequently
open sourced and adapted by the OCaml community.
It had to be renamed due to trademarks quite soon after
open sourcing, and there was a search for a new name at:
https://github.com/ocaml/dune/issues/360
The winning suggestion here was Dune:
https://github.com/ocaml/dune/issues/360#issuecomment-350895720
which noted the existence of a numerical *library* that didn’t
install a binary called dune, and so we didn’t have a clash.
> No-one has suggested a plausible charitable explanation for
> why the ocaml upstream made such egregiously bad naming
> mistakes twice in succession.
Has anyone actually bothered to ask the Dune maintainers
this question? Are we supposed to track all Debian mailing
lists in the hope that we’ll run across a query about our work?
To state the obvious, Caml has had a desert-naming theme
for quite some time (since it originates from before the Debian
project even began). We did our research with the Dune
name, and I fail to understand why this block in Debian
reasonably exists, particularly as libdune (the numerical
library) doesn’t install anything called `/usr/bin/dune`.
I also dispute your rather dubious claim that there was
"rough consensus” about this. Looking at the bug report:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622
As far as I can tell from browsing the archives, the
*only person* to seriously object is you, and that too with very
misleading comments. To quote you from:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622
Ian Jackson wrote:
> What on earth possessed them to pick the name `dune' ? Even if they
> couldn't be bothered to do a Debian file search,
> https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that no-one should be allowed
> the name /usr/bin/dune.
To follow your own queries above, the file search reveals the only use of
/usr/bin/dune to be a VRML editor. Since that upstream is actually called
white_dune, surely the obvious conclusion is that that binary should
be renamed after a polite request to the maintainers of the desktop
tool.
regards,
Anil
Reply to: