On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:09:12 +0000, Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> said:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:00 PM Hubert Chathi <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:53:50 +0000, Aigars Mahinovs >> <[email protected]> said: >> >> > I don't want to use OpenStack. I want to find a fuel logging > >> application to keep track of the expenses in my car. I search >> packages > for "fuel" and find Fuel. So I install it. ... >> >> First of all, I don't see a package that's simply named "fuel", >> but... >> > fuel-agent > fuel image based provisioning agent > Ok, so it lets me to take pictures of my fuel bills and then does > somethinng to provision me with more fuel? Sure! I agree that that description could be better. For sure it would be an improvement to mention OpenStack at least in the long description, not just for people who don't use OpenStack to know that this package might not be for them, but also for people who do use OpenStack so that they know that the package they're looking at is related to what they want [1]. But then I would say that the problem here is with the description, and not with the package name. Now, I'm not saying that I don't think the OpenStack packages should be namespaced. I'm just saying that I don't find the argument that "it should be namespaced because it's confusing for people looking for a fuel logging application" is a compelling argument any more than "the package 'egg' should be renamed because it's confusing for people looking for an egg timer". [1] a better example of this might be the package swauth: "alternative authentication system for Swift", since there are at least two other Swifts (swift-im and Apple's programming language), and an authentication system might make sense for any of those.
