[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package naming rant

Thomas Goirand writes ("Re: Package naming rant"):
> On 04/18/2016 11:43 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > There could be a simple rule of thumb - if the name of the package makes
> > sense and is correctly understood without it being in the openstack
> > context, then it can exist without the prefix.
> The point being that users of OpenStack at least know the names of the
> services they install (ie: nova for Compute, Neutron for networking,
> etc.). The fact that non-OpenStack users will probably not understand
> what the package does without reading the description isn't really a
> problem. As for the libs, even OpenStack users don't even need to bother
> knowing what they are, as they will be installed thanks to dependencies,
> so in fact, only the package maintainers care.

This argument seems to suppose that no-one unfamiliar with a package
ever reads its name.  This is an astonishing assumption.

There are numerous interfaces (including search interfaces) where the
output is a list of packages, with the package name being a principal
part of the output (or sometimes the only output).

So I agree with Aigars.

Also, *applause* to Enrico for the head article in this thread.


Reply to: