Bug#253511: reassign to developers-reference (Rejected: Bug#253511)
reopen 253511
reassign 253511 developers-reference
severity 253511 wishlist
tags 253511 - wontfix
retitle 253511 "provide guideline to keep the package namespace sane"
thanks
Hi,
Thanks for cleaning up BTS.
I agree with the rationale of Russ on closing this bug.
As I look back, this old bug report should have been a wishlist bug to
developers-reference since it is "Best Practice" issue. What I proposed
does not fit with Policy but it is something mentioned as a guide line.
I know this problem is addressed via WNPP process described in 5.1.
There is a link to http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html:
There, 2nd reason for rejection is listed as:
* trying to keep the package namespace sane,
But it goes only to define in the later table as:
Package name Use the right package names. A lib should start with
lib, a perl module with lib and end with -perl, etc
The contents in REJECT-FAQ is reasonable since it is "Policy" like
strong statement. But for the sake of better usability, we should
recommend some guideline in developers-reference. I mean something
along what I proposed before for Policy 3.1 is needed to be added to
developers-reference 5.1.
Osamu
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:06PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> #253511: [PROPOSAL] clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..."
> It has been closed by Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>.
> --
> 253511: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253511
> From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
> Subject: Rejected: Bug#253511: clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..."
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> Cc: 253511-done@bugs.debian.org
> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:52:17 -0700
>
> This is a proposal to add some standards to Policy for how packages should
> be named to avoid short package names or names that are more common than
> the package deserves (camera, terminal, etc.).
>
> The proposal was discussed briefly in 2004 and then the discussion died
> without proposed wording or apparent consensus.
>
> This topic is still discussed from time to time on debian-devel, but it's
> difficult to write a Policy provision that incorporates the various
> common-sense guidelines that go into good package names. My belief is
> that public review on debian-devel with the possible intervention of
> ftpmaster where necessary is preferrable to trying to codify rules for
> package naming in Policy.
>
> For that reason, plus lack of consensus, I am rejecting this proposal.
> This is a soft rejection, meaning that if someone feels strongly about
> this proposal and wants to step forward to champion it again, I'd be
> willing to reopen the bug.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>
> From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] clarify "package must have a name that's unique ..."
> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:46:30 +0200
>
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.1.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Currently policy states:
>
> |3.1. The package name
> |---------------------
> |
> | Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian
> | archive.
> |
> | The package name is included in the control field `Package', the
> | format of which is described in Section 5.6.6, ``Package''. The
> | package name is also included as a part of the file name of the `.deb'
> | file.
>
> Here there is no restriction for the package name being *sane*.
>
> On the other hand, "3.2. The version of a package" has
> ...
> | If an upstream package has problematic version numbers they should be
> | converted to a sane form for use in the `Version' field.
> ^^^^
>
> This gives a good ground for not choosing bad version naming.
>
> Most of us think that keeping *unique* name requires the choice of
> package name to be *sane* :) (Yes, I know a gnustep application
> packager disagreed.)
>
> We need to clarify the position of Debian on 3.1.
>
> Let me propose:
>
> |3.1. The package name
> |---------------------
> |
> | Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian
> | archive.
> |
> | The package name is included in the control field `Package', the
> | format of which is described in Section 5.6.6, ``Package''. The
> | package name is also included as a part of the file name of the `.deb'
> | file.
> |
> + If an upstream package has problematic name they should be converted
> + to a sane form for use in the `Package' field.
> +
> +3.1.1. Package name guidelines
> +------------------------------
> + Use of common sense to avoid name space pollution of package names
> + are encouraged. The package name should be longer than 4
> + characters and should not use generic words. Use of prefix to
> + identify name a group of softwares which are applicable only for
> + the subset of the Debian environment is encouraged. Some
> + traditional popular programs may be exempted from these restriction.
>
> I welcome better English but I think I made my intent clear with above.
> I think that the choice of command name should follow similar restriction.
>
> NB: (Here is more of my thoughts ...)
>
> I am not expecting this to be strictly applied from Sarge. This is
> to quiet future flame war on package name for post-Sarge.
>
> I see no problem with followings as package name:
> * at
> * m4
> * mc
> * dc
> * gs
> * lv (Maybe because I am Japanese)
> * nvi
> * g++
> * gcc
> * ftp
> * inn
> * lpr
> * ppp
> * ssh
> * screen
>
> There are 51 packages with 2 characters and there are 356 packages with
> 3 characters already. (unstable/main) Here are 2 character package
> names:
>
> af an at bb bc bl cu cw dc di dx e3 ed ee es fv gb gq gs gv ht hx im
> kq le lv m4 mc mp nd ne nn pi pv qe qm rc re ri sc sl sn sp tf ud vh
> vm wl wv xt yh
>
> I doubt how many packages of these deserve to use 2 character name
> space.
>
> I want to see following proposed/existing package names are changed:
>
> * camara --> gnustep-camera
> * latexservice --> gnustep-latexservice
> * terminal --> gnustep-terminal
> * connect --> gnustep-connect
> ...
>
> (Here I do not care prefix being gnustep- or gnustep-client- )
>
> Generic words may be used for virtual package names if needed.
>
> If anyone has better way to stop nonsense package names, I will be
> open for suggestion.
>
> -- System Information:
...
Reply to: