Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:20:23PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:17:43PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> >
> > See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of
> > the science packages to call it -data.
>
> I'm perfectly fine with the -data name - but I see no reason why the
> source package should have a different name.
Well, the source package should follow upstream's naming and especially
tarball naming conventions. Renaming the source package would be much
more confusing than having different names for the binary and the source
package name.
> > > For a single binary package it is more convenient to choose the same
> > > name for both.
> >
> > Can you explain what the convenience is? Or rather what the problems
> > with different names are?
>
> It is no problem but at several points it is somehow confusing to have
> different names. I would not do this without good reason and I do not
> see a good reason to use gpaw-data also for the source package.
The binary package name is exposed to users, the source package name is
only exposed to developers, really. And they should not be confused by
this, IMO.
Michael
Reply to: