[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#592877: ITP: apt2 -- Advanced Package Tool 2

On Sa, 2010-08-14 at 12:31 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Julian Andres Klode 
> Hi,
> | I think that all in all, apt2 is a known name already, it can be found
> | easily, it can not be confused with other things.
> I find it fairly rude to stomp on apt's namespace like that, and while
> apt's currently at a sub-1 number, it might eventually reach 2.0, and
> then you'll have more confusion, just like you have for jabberd 1.4 and
> jabberd2 being completely different code bases that have nothing in
> common apart from the name.  The same goes for apt-ng or similar names
> that imply that «apt2» is the next version of apt.
> (This said with the assumption that «apt2» isn't scheduled to replace
> apt, with the apt maintainers's blessing.  If they're happy to drop the
> current apt in favour of «apt2», my complaint goes away.)

Let's make it clear that:
      * APT2 is the current codename of the project
      * APT2 (or APT 2.0) may be the final name, if
              * At least 50% of the active APT developers agree[0];
                      * Michael Vogt
                      * David Kalnischkies [1]
                      * Julian Andres Klode
              * and the package is accepted by ftpmaster
      * APT2 will be backwards-compatible to APT on the configuration
      * APT2 will feature a compatibility layer on the Python level
      * APT2 will be very very similar to APT on the command-line
        (although everything is in one tool, but you could create compat
      * APT2's API is otherwise very different, as it is written in C.
      * APT2 is LGPL-2.1+ licensed, whereas APT consists of GPL-2+ and
        public domain parts

If we get no agreement on the APT2 name when it is production-ready, I
will choose a different name (seek a few proposals and get a poll).

On a different matter, if someone wants to have a cow [or a daemon and a
GNU for GNU/kFreeBSD ] in APT2, please send one (it should be LGPL-2.1+
licensed, although FreeBSD license should be acceptable as well).

[0] voting of course once it is production-ready, not now.
[1] not listed in Uploaders, but very very active.
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Reply to: