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

[Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org>]

Hello!

Philipp Kern:
> 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).

While that would be a good idea, I believe that software using "tor" in
their name needs to be acknowledged by the Torproject, see
https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html

We've however seen from previous experience that software not made by
the the Torproject is kindly requested to be named differently, hence
for example Tails' previously called tor-monitor software has been
renamed to "onioncircuits".

>> - 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.

I don't know what this name change was motivated by.

>> - 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.

See above. If anything, the package could use the `onion` prefix in
Debian, but as this is not policy and IMO even adds more complexity, it
could also simply use the upstream name as initially suggested by Ju.

Cheers!
Ulrike