Re: Package naming rant
On 04/21/2016 10:47 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> You can make a openstack-fuel-agent package and it will be clear that it
> is useless to people that do not know what openstack is. By making a
> package in a general namespace you are basically saying that this
> package is useful to everyone, that people do not need to know or use
> openstack for it to be useful to them.
As I wrote in another reply, Fuel could be used in another context than
just OpenStack. It's not the case now, but maybe it will happen one day.
On a more general way, I'm really disappointed by this thread.
In general, I take a great care of having consistent naming. I have
mostly correct short and long descriptions which I care for, and for
which I often discuss with some upstream who mostly don't care (so it's
often hard to ask for a good description). Once or twice, I asked
packaged to be renamed upstream. I also cared for the /usr/bin
namespace. This is done over a *very* large amount of packages (which
took me as far as being the DD with the biggest amount of Python module
packaged in Debian).
Instead of recognizing this efforts, or even checking if I do this kind
of work or not, I'm getting rants over a very long thread about how
silly the upstream name is, that the packages I maintain probably are
polluting the /usr/bin namespace (without even checking for the fact),
and all this type of crap.
Guys, I don't appreciate this joke at all. Probably I should stop caring
for all of this, just let upstream do all sorts of nasty things, package
and upload that to Debian. Why should I care, if anyway, I get this type
of thread in return?
If you don't mind, please take someone else as a target. I'm leaving for
the OpenStack summit in 24 hours, I'd like to have something better,
more positive, things to think about in the plane.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: