Quoting Andreas Henriksson (2023-11-26 14:26:37) > Hello Jonas, > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 12:45:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Andreas Henriksson (2023-11-26 09:27:32) > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > Owner: Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se> > > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org > > > > > > * Package name : bankstown > > [...] > > > Naming > > > ------------------- > > > Upstream name: bankstown > > > crates.io name: bankstown-lv2 > > > > > > My proposition is that we use the upstream name as debian source name > > > (bankstown) and then use `lv2-bankstown` binary package name, as > > > bankstown is a lv2 plugin and that would fit generic naming conventions > > > in Debian about packages fitting into a particular ecosystem. > > > > Please consider using "bankstown-lv2" for both source and binary > > package, to not needlessly consume multiple global namespaces. > > I have been considering, but please help convince me. > > Pro bankstown-lv2: > > - not needlessly consume multiple global namespaces. > > This argument is just saying binary and source name should match, right? > > - matches crates.io name. > - matches what atleast some other lv2 plugins are doing in debian. > > > Cons: > > - (source) does not match the upstream (git repo) name (bankstown). > - does not follow the system-subsystem pattern commonly used in debian.
Not sure what you mean by "system-subsystem pattern". I guess you mean lib*-perl or python-* or rust-*, but those are all namespace affixes for libraries, to avoid those needlessly clashing with non-libraries or other independent library families. What would be relevant to consider here is the source package name "rust-bankstown-lv2" (and binary package name "librust-bankstown-lv2" if exposing the library to Debian), as the pattern commonly used in Debian for Rust libraries is those affixes with the crates.io name as stem. Personally I would however reuse the binary package name for the source package for a Rust project unlikely to need its library exposed to Debian. > - does not match what other distributions are doing (atleast not Fedora > Asahi Remix, which is the reference distribution). I find that a weak argument. Few other distros are as big as Debian, and therefore need to care as much about name clashes as Debian. Also, name of *source* package name varying across (non-derived) distros is rarely bothersome. For comparison, varying *binary* package name causes minor bother e.g. when upstream upstream cannot say "install foobar and execute foo" but need to add "...except on Debian where you install rust-foobar and execute foo-rust". > It is my opinion that the bankstown name, in any form, is unique enough > that noone should need to collide with it. True. ...but then next year new shiny upstream project "dot" gets packaged not as "dot-lv2" but "dot" because there is a precedence for lv2 packages to use no affix. > My main worry would be if lv2 itself grew a subsystem called bankstown, > which would then be lv2-bankstown as well, but see previous statement > about the bankstown uniqueness. Why is it likely that a project now registered at crates.io with suffix "-lv2" would grow a non-suffix subsystem? ...and if they did, why would that need to involve an "lv2-" *prefix*? I find it far more likely that if upstream were to intriduce a non-lv2 component, they would introduce that at crates.io as simply "bankstown" and it would make sense to me to package that as source+binary package "bankstown" - except if it was library, in which case it would be source "rust-bankstown" and binary "librust-bankstown". > For me the strongest pro argument is probably that other lv2 plugins > in debian seems to point to the pluginname-lv2 pattern, but not really > enough to completely convince me (atleast not for source name). > > For the source name, if we're going to mangle it maybe I should atleast > there follow fedora naming of `rust-bankstown-lv2` which would also > align with the Debian rust-team naming convention? > I really would like to avoid mangling source name though... Why do you call it mangling to pick another of upstream's multiple names? They chose one name at crates.io and another at Github. And why do you find it important to align source package name with source package name of (non-derived) distros? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
