Hi!
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 15:19:38 +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 14:05 +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> > I saw the package being uploaded to NEW just a moment ago. I could rename
> > it to python-releases (I don't think there's a standard naming scheme for
> > sphinx extensions yet). What do you think?
>
> I find "python-releases" confusing in the same way. If I sawOr python-sphinx-releases, python-sphinx.releases or something like that,
>
> "Bug #xxxxxx is in stable python-releases but fixed in unstable python-releases."
>
> then I'd understand that it was a bug in the python2.7 & python3.2
> packages, not a bug in a package called "python-releases".
>
> I prefer a name that doesn't look like the name of another package
> followed by the word "releases". Maybe "python-releaseslog".
there's few precedents for the former on the archive already. I think it
would be nice to discuss this on the debian-python list to try to come
to an agreement on the namespace, because simply using the non-namespaced
upstream module name is really not good for the overall distribution.
Please make sure to rename both binary and *source* packages.
I just saw it in NEW and I've to agree it is very confusing. I think
> Note: I'm not a DD, if no DD is complaining then maybe it's not confusing.
people might usually notice when it's already in the archive which
implies going through NEW again, package removal requests, possibly
transitional packages, etc, which might deter them from mentioning it
or filing bug reports.
IMO the ftp-masters are not rejecting enough packages when it comes
to namespace problems.
Thanks,
Guillem