On 04/21/2016 10:47 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > You can make a openstack-fuel-agent package and it will be clear that it > is useless to people that do not know what openstack is. By making a > package in a general namespace you are basically saying that this > package is useful to everyone, that people do not need to know or use > openstack for it to be useful to them.
As I wrote in another reply, Fuel could be used in another context than just OpenStack. It's not the case now, but maybe it will happen one day. On a more general way, I'm really disappointed by this thread. In general, I take a great care of having consistent naming. I have mostly correct short and long descriptions which I care for, and for which I often discuss with some upstream who mostly don't care (so it's often hard to ask for a good description). Once or twice, I asked packaged to be renamed upstream. I also cared for the /usr/bin namespace. This is done over a *very* large amount of packages (which took me as far as being the DD with the biggest amount of Python module packaged in Debian). Instead of recognizing this efforts, or even checking if I do this kind of work or not, I'm getting rants over a very long thread about how silly the upstream name is, that the packages I maintain probably are polluting the /usr/bin namespace (without even checking for the fact), and all this type of crap. Guys, I don't appreciate this joke at all. Probably I should stop caring for all of this, just let upstream do all sorts of nasty things, package and upload that to Debian. Why should I care, if anyway, I get this type of thread in return? If you don't mind, please take someone else as a target. I'm leaving for the OpenStack summit in 24 hours, I'd like to have something better, more positive, things to think about in the plane. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
