Re: Package naming rant
On 04/18/2016 11:43 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org
> <mailto:zigo@debian.org>> wrote:
>
> Now, about the naming itself, let me give my opinion.
>
> I could have pre-fixed all packages with "openstack-" like they did in
> RDO/Red Hat, but this has proven to be really not convenient at all for
> OpenStack users, with for example, names like this one:
>
> neutron-openvswitch-agent
>
> Add OpenStack and it becomes:
>
> openstack-neutron-openvswitch-agent
>
> This IMO is a way too long.
>
>
> 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.
Now, the only thing there is to fix, is IMO the tags of the packages.
Hopefully, maybe Enrico can help me to fix that.
> Word "Fuel" and word "Shotgun" have meanings outside the OpenStack
> context.
This is the case of all programs which have a name that isn't explaining
what it does. We all have loads of them installed on our
workstation/laptops. Do you believe Firefox, Thunderbird, Gobby, Skype,
Steam (to just name a few) have names with more meaning? I don't think
so, it's just that they are more famous, and you know them because you
use them.
> Thus unless Fuel collects gas mileage data and shotgun destroys
> all kinds of stuff, then prefixing the name with OpenStack is essential
> for understanding. And not only in the package names. That description
> is meaningless unless you already know that "Fuel" is OpenStack, so that
> also should be replaced by "OpenStack Fuel project".
>
> It does not matter that OpenStack Oslo makes sense in the OpenStack
> context unless you put the reader into the OpenStack context first. Out
> of that context that is a city name. And that is confusing. At least for
> me it is for sure.
Oslo means: OpenStack Light Orchestra. If you guys think it's useful, I
can add this to the long description of all Oslo packages. However, I'm
convinced (but didn't check them all) that all Oslo packages have at
least one the word OpenStack in the short and/or long description, so
I'm not sure this will help anyone.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: