Bug#804315: [Vmdebootstrap-devel] Namespace issues
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:13:54AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> May I suggest debian-cd-live or debian-live-cd as a name? That would
> be close in name to debian-cd, highlighting its use case.
I would advise against these suggestions, because using debian in the name of a
loosely-coupled sub-project (and due to the nature of Debian, all sub-projects
are loosely-coupled) is it implies a sense of "officialness" above and beyond
other software that might co-exist, either now or in the future. (Consider
if/when we decide that debhelper, d-i and various other things need to be
replaced in the future, we will face a similar problem). For that reason, I
think it would be good to avoid using the project name in software names. As
such:
> Or vmdebootstrap-live if you want to focus on vmdebootstrap name-wise (you
> being maintainer here).
Would be fine. (although vmdebootstrap is an accretion on top of debootstrap
in the first place and I'd rather that wasn't the case either, mutter mutter
cognitive burden of Debian tooling proliferation mutter mutter)
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:13:54AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Well, people seem to be happy to "invade" other namespaces, just look
> at how much packages start with "apt-" ;) [which confuses users, because
> they think the APT team is the right team to talk to].
Yes, the *apt* "namespace" is a good example of why *not* to do this. (See
also git-buildpackage, which managed to invade two namespaces at the same
time - although since fixed it seems)
> But we don't have the replacement problem, there is no apt-ng package
> or similar.
...yet :)
It seems Iain has opted for live-wrapper now, which IMHO does not have the
problems of live-build-ng. Clashing with "live-build" is considered rude,
but OTOH "live*" is too-wide a namespace for live-build to claim to itself.
--
Jonathan Dowland
Reply to: