On 2024-03-17 14:09 +0100, Sven Wick wrote: > Hi, > > I maintain the package **ssh-tools** > and upstream as well. > These are a mix of Bash and Perl scripts. > > Recently I do more stuff with Go > and have new tools written in Go > and don't want to mix them with the Bash and Perl Scripts > because that would be difficult to package (also for other Distros and OSes).
> Currently it's ssh-toolz (with a "z") > since I found examples like **python3-toolz**. > But I also thought about ssh-tools2 sind there is **wget2**. > > Any suggestion what the best practice is to name similar packages? Are the new tools replacements or additional? I don't see why adding a 3rd language to the 2 already used makes things 'hard to package', but obviously if you want to have a separate upstream repository (e.g. because you want to supesede the old repository eventually) then that's up to you as upstream. > I am not sure how to name the new tools upstream repo > and therefore the package name. If the new stuff is intended to be a replacement then ssh-tools2 or ssh-tools-ng (for 'next generation') are typical patterns. If they are just more tools then ssh-tools-extra would make sense, or just keep them all in one package/repo as 'ssh-tools' which I think users would like best. ssh-toolz is fine as a name, but obviously users will have no idea what the difference between ssh-tools and ssh-toolz is, so at least be very clear in the long description, and give a clue in the short one if possible. And thanks for thinking about it before it's too late to fix. Names that are clear to users are definitely helpful. Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
