On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> writes:He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream consent.Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for the old names / etc), but I don't think that's where you're going here.
Well, upstream has chosen these names. Besides from the fact that the project and its applications are known by these names (how would you tag the package, so that someone who knows the project would find the right package with apt or apt-file?) it has something to do with politeness (in my opinion). If you wish to package the work of others you should use the right names (we don’t have any name clash).
If you have a problem with the names but upstream doesn’t (it seems to be a Frensh project, even with female developpers), you’re free to drop the package. Or, as Marvin Renich noted, you can fork the project. Then you can do as you please as long as you do the work. Then time will tell if you win the users of the old project.
Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature