Re: Bug#518538: ITP: music -- ITP: music -- Multi-Simulation Coordinator for MPI
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Mikael Djurfeldt <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Sandro Tosi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> More seriously, we have one problem here: The name of the upstream
> software could probably be regarded as written in stone by now since
> the project has been running for two years and the research
> organization initiating it (INCF) has invested a lot in the name
> within the field.
> So, the question then becomes how to deal with it in the best way for
> Debian. The main component of MUSIC is a library---you link with it
> along with mpi (-lmusic). I think it could cause confusion if the
> library had a different name when working as a developer under Debian.
>> I dunno the field that much, but maybe "mpi-music" or so can be better.
> What about renaming the source package to incf-music but keeping the
> names of the packages generated from it (libmusic1, libmusic-dev etc)?
After some thinking, I tend to favor naming the source package simply
`music' since that name has a more logical relationship with the
generated packages. I'm afraid incf-music could cause confusion.
And, again, I motivate the generic name with the already existing
project name and the fact that developers link with the library
libmusic. (There are other examples of pretty generic names in the
archive, like "balance", "dish" etc.