On Thu 2023-08-10 21:59:24 +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> The corrected URL is https://github.com/rnp/sexpp and the package name
>> will be sexpp. This has been in NEW for over a month now, and is
>> blocking our ability to ship an updated librnp, which impacts
>> thunderbird (see #1041409).
>
> It is only that long in NEW because nobody cared to answer my question
> from weeks ago.
sorry about that, it looks like it came to my personal e-mail, and i'd
missed that message when it came in. It wasn't on any of the threads
related to this issue already, and i didn't see it in any of the public
places i expected to see it.
>> It would be great if someone on the FTP team could either accept the
>> sexpp package, or reject it with an explanation of what needs to be done
>> to fix it.
>
> I am not going to ACCEPT a package with that name, but maybe someone else
> from the team wants to do this.
I understand the concern (i'm an upstream maintainer of "impass", whose
own package name was … uh, fairly juvenile before it was renamed, and i
led the renaming due to this same concern).
That said, I don't know what other name to choose for this package.
This is the name from upstream. The project is designed to work with
s-expressions. it's written in C++. The upstream authors (Ribose) are
serious developers, who have no apparent interest in silly shenanigans
with the name, and we already have packages named "libsexp1" (from
source package "sfsexp"), libcsexp-ocalm, python3-sexpdata, etc.
nettle-bin includes a binary /usr/sbin/sexp-conv
would it be better if it was libs-expp or libs_expp instead of libsexpp?
or just libsexpression ? Would it be better if the command line utility
were named something other than /usr/bin/sexpp ? if so, what? The
symbol prefixes in the library use the (c++-mangled) "sexp" namespace
prefix.
i've already convinced upstream to rename it from libsexp to avoid a
naming collision with the sfsexp library we publish as libsexp1; they
chose libsexpp to indicate that it is a C++ library. I can go back
again and ask them for another rename, but at this point i'd feel like
i'm becoming more of a pest than a helpful maintainer. I certainly
wouldn't want to do it unless i knew that what i was asking them for
would be acceptable within debian.
If i have to pick a reasonable set of next steps, i'd recommend one of:
- someone from the FTP-team tells me what sort of rename you would find
acceptable, and i'll decide either make it as a patch for debian to
carry, or ask upstream to make yet another name, or
- the FTP-team can just accept the package.
If there's some third option for a possible next step, i'm all ears.
All the best,
--dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature