Bug#847524: ITP: distributed -- Dask Distributed computing for Python
On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:23:56 -0800
Diane Trout <diane@ghic.org> wrote:
> I agree its a terribly generic name.
>
> Usually, debianized python packages use the upstream name foo as the
> source name and then python-foo as the binary name. especially when
> foo is the module you import in python.
>
> But considering distributed is so generic I too was tempted to name
> the python-dask-distributed. I asked on #debian-python, but they
> suggested use the name you use in the import.
>
> I'll see if I can get some of the more experienced people in the
> Python Modules team to weigh in on the name.
>
> Upstream sometimes uses dask.distributed in the documentation, which
> might be a better choice.
Well, generic names are better shot early in their flight into the
archive -- otherwise we get somewhat painful situations like, say, the
"node" package which those 100500 JavaScript developers take for
granted to denote their favourite server-side scripting engine while
Debian uses this name for a package working with amateur radio stuff.
In the past, there were (way less painful) issues with the names
"chromium" and "git", and I'm sure silver-bearded veterans would come up
with more examples. ;-)
That's what triggered my response.
[...]
> Also thank you for taking the time to review my ITPs. I didn't realize
> that people watched the bugs.
The ITP bugs are Cc'ed to the debian-devel mailing list.
The reason is exactly this: iexperienced maintainers usually do routine
bloopers which can be easily caught by a trained eye and pointed at
right away.
Also, there's the first (and cheap to have) "line of defence" against
packaging of software which is in outright bad shape or software
with an apparent licensing issue or software which already has an ITP
bug filed and so on.
Reply to: