Re: create new Debian-Kernel project (was: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel)
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>#include <hallo.h>
>* Jamie Wilkinson [Mon, Nov 10 2003, 06:54:22PM]:
>
>> >The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
>> >other arguments against your "linux" package. IIRC you prefered not to
>> >answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
>>
>> 'linux' is a perfect name for the package. The tarballs contain that very
>> name.
>
>Note that the name is choosen not only to attract the user, but also to
>catch that who blindly use "apt-get source linux". The user wouldn't get
>the well-known and good kernel-source packages but something which is
>under control of Robert. Further, what they would get is not a clean
>source but something with debian/ dir inside which would confuse
>make-kpkg. I would not mind if he had called it "linux-rmh" or such.
I do not understand your point, you are trying to protect users who
inadvertently type "apt-get source linux"? When I type "apt-get source
pppoeconf", do I not get the source to the Debian package of ppoeconf? Why
should it be any different? I'm not convinced that people type "apt-get
source x" inadvertently either.
Your second sentence is flagrant abuse, and its tone seems common in your
attempts at constructing a reasoned argument. Please try to keep civil,
Eduard. I trust your ability to maintain your packages, as I trust everyone
else in this project, at least until I see the product of their work.
Confusing make-kpkg would be an issue, I suppose -- given that one could
want to get any kernel source and build it with the tools they're familiar
with. If it were me, I'd make sure to include some extra information in the
package README.
>> >> 2) I use the upstream name. If you don't like it, bitch upstream.
>> >
>> >Sorry, how much did you drink to find an answer like this one? If Linus
>> >changes the package name (which is unlikely to happen ;)), I am sure you
>> >would rename your ITP to follow him.
>>
>> Are you implying that you make up names for the software that you package,
>> rather than use the name given to it by upstream? I believe you don't.
>
>Ah, that is a good base to start a discussion. Of course it is better to
>keep the upstreams name but make exceptions if they are too generic, to
>confusing or to offensive (though we did already accept such ones, eg.
>"pornview" ;)).
I concur that packages have been renamed where their name is too generic,
such as verbs and short nouns (one of my earliest packages, imgstamp, was
originally named 'stamp' and rejected). However, this is the word 'linux'.
What else do you think it could possibly refer to?
--
jaq@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~jaq
Reply to: