Hi all, Let us please all name new source package same as main binary package (not same as upstream project). I am concerned about the practice of naming source packages after upstream projects, seemingly common at least for Python packages. Problem is needlessly leads to unintuitive package names later on. (key above is _needlessly_ - other name clashes may occur as well) Makes good sense to package upstream project FooBar as src:foobar when main purpose of the project is to provide an executable or daemon by that name - i.e. if main binary package occupies one of our _general_ namespaces with that name anyway. But if the project uses only e.g. a library-specific namespaces, then please name the source package same as the main binary package. Sensible: python3-qrencode is src:python-qrencode - qrencode is a different (even if in this case related) upstream project. Problematic: python3-sqlparse is src:sqlparse - needlessly grabs "sqlparse" in a generic namespace, and thus makes it difficult to later introduce a package mainly providing an executable sqlparse. Proper place to declare upstream projectname is in debian/copyright as field Upstream-Name - which allows spaces etc. lost in package name. Therefore: Can we please use domain-specific names for source packages, to leave names available in generic namespace when possible. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature