Re: RFS: notorious-women
Hi,
Bilal Akhtar wrote:
> Sorry for the damage caused by my message about the package being
> "sexist".
>
> I just wished to point out this to you, since I very well know that, in
> order to get packages accepted in Debian, the package name must be
> well-formed.
It's not only "well-known", it's mandated by our Policy.
> Just take the case of my package gnome-media-player. I submitted the RFS
> two months ago, and got a large number of replies, everyone saying "How
> can you use this package name? It is *not* the official GNOME's Media
> Player (Totem Is) and so you should change the package name." No one ever
> seemed to care even after I said that the package is already in Ubuntu
> (proof at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-media-player ). I was
> finally forced to get the package into Ubuntu and give up Debian (the
> upstream advised this).
I find funny how the "it is in Ubuntu, it must be good" argument is used so
often. The fact that "Ubuntu" accepted that package with said name doesn't
necessarily make it good or suitable as-is for Debian. Different distros,
different policies and different people.
You were asked to change your package name to avoid confusion between that
media player and the "official GNOME Media Player" - you chose to not do so,
I don't see where you were "forced" to get the package in Ubuntu.
> If package names matter so much, then I felt like this package might
> also not get accepted into the archives. Sorry for being harsh in my
> comments. Will take care of it from next time onwards.
It seems that you are mixing your own package issue (name collision and
confusion) with that one (you argued about it being "sexist"). Those issues
have nothing to do with eachother IMHO.
> Cheers,
> Bilal Akhtar
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: