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

Re: dpkg-sig: sign binary debian archive files

Sorry to not responding to the name discussion earlier. But it's
christmas, so there're a lot of family issues.

To the name in general:
I don't really care about the name. I started using debsigs-ng, but
Overfiend (maintainer of debsigs) asked me to change the name because
dpkg-sig is not a fork off debsigs. After that, there was a discussion
on IRC which brought dpkg-{sig,sign,experimental-sign}, dpst or
`makepasswd` as result. After that discussion, I re-titled my ITP to
dpkg-sig (and Cc'ed d-d on this), and all I got were two supporting
answers, so I decided that there is no problem with uploading. The
package sits now on ftp-master in the NEW-queue.

* Martin Michlmayr (tbm@cyrius.com) [031228 14:55]:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> [2003-12-28 14:14]:
> > 'apt-cache search --names-only "^apt-" |grep -v howto'. We don't
> > have any policy on name space collision AFAIK, do we?

> Not having a policy doesn't mean that everything is allowed.  And the
> dpkg maintainers have made it clear in the past that the dpkg
> namespace is theirs.


However, I remember a IRC-session where doogie was also there (but I
don't log IRC normally, so I can't re-read that session) and where
there was talk about the name, and I got no "No", "please not" or
similar. I remember also a discussion with doogie about "make it in an
extra package or as part of dpkg (source package)?" where I got
something like: Show usable code in an extra package, and if it works
(and is actually used), it's possible to move that to dpkg later on.

So, for me the situation is this:
- If the dpkg-maintainers ask me to change name I'll of course do this.
- I'll try to move the code to src:dpkg if dpkg-sig is really used
  (which I assume and hope); otherwise, we won't need an unused
  package in the archive.

I hope this is ok.

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: