Re: Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner

[Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>]

On 18.07.2018 20:38, ju xor wrote:
> Philipp Kern:
>> On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote:
>>> Philipp Kern:
>>>> Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace?
>>> no
>> Without any rationale? :(
> i'm not sure what you mean, but in case it helps, here some arguments
> why sbws package is not called something like tor-sbws:
> 
> - upstream is not using "tor-*" in the name
> - i don't think there's a Debian policy to name packages as "tor-*" [0]

Of course there isn't. But if the package is incredibly specialized, it
might make sense to do that anyhow. Debian is not bound to reuse the
upstream name, although in many cases it makes sense (first and foremost
when scripts are concerned, but there are plenty of other reasons).

> - AFAICT, the only package in Debian that is named as "tor-*" is
> "tor-geoipbd", and that's a package on which "tor" itself depends on.
> - "tor" itself does not depends on sbws, though sbws makes use of "tor"
> - python3-stem is a library to control tor on which sbws depends, and
> it's not called "tor-*"

I guess I was mostly concerned about the global namespace rather than a
library-specific one.

> - nyx, is a tor monitor, and is not called "tor-*"

Fair. Although, to note, it used to be called tor-arm according to the
package's description. And it feels like the possible target audience of
sbws is even less than the one of nyx. That said: Maybe include the
target audience (i.e. who is going to have an interest in running this
package) somewhere in your description. If this is of interest to all
relay operators rather than just the authorities, that's probably relevant.

> - there're several packages called "onion*", which is not "tor-*"

Well, tor-* was a proposal to disambiguate a short name. I don't
particularly care what the prefix would be.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern