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

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Nov 28 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> wrote:
> > On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > > texlive-binaries-source		96M
> > > 	texlive-basicbin
> > What about texlive-bin-base?
> I think that keeping the package names the same as the texlive
> collection names would be a great benefit for the users.

For which users exactly? Debian users? I would expect the fact of
packaging a given piece of software to adapt it to the Debian system as
a whole.

For instance, many programs put their configuration files in places that
are not acceptable for a Debian system (for instance, qmail comes to
mind: it keeps is configuration files on /var/qmail/control), but the
task of a Debian Developer is to adapt the package requirements to what
a Debian system would look like (e.g., make all configuration of the
package must be accessible via /etc).

I understand that keeping the names in sync with what upstream provides
is nice and here we have to make a choice between two "standards". Which
one to choose? I sincerely don't know.

Oh, and even though some things aren't mandated, they are of course the
basis for future policy if the practice is considered to be good enough
(i.e., if it is a best current practice).

BTW, I do agree with the fact that the naming alone (except for some
disasterous things) is not a strong reason to reject an upload.

Regards, Rogério Brito.

P.S.: If, indeed, the package names for language things are changed, the
proposal of having them use the ISO abbrevs would be quite nice.
Rogério Brito : rbrito@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/

Reply to: