Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Sean Dague writes: > bashate ftw. +1 to bashate Chmouel ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/13/2014 03:01 PM, Mathew R Odden wrote: > > I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the > > strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine > > with renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some > > time to work through all the references. > > > > Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently > > (from gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't > > very descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes > > in python package names :( > > > > My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the > > easiest to transition to from the current name. > > -tidy programs typically rewrite your code (at least html-tidy and > perl-tidy do), so I think that's definitely not a name we want, because > we aren't doing that (or ever plan to do that). > > bashate ftw. > I completely did not care at all until you suggested this! +1 for bashate!!! > > Because if you can't have an inside joke buried within your naming of an > open source project, what's the point. :) > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/13/2014 03:01 PM, Mathew R Odden wrote: > I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the > strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine > with renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some > time to work through all the references. > > Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently > (from gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't > very descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes > in python package names :( > > My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the > easiest to transition to from the current name. -tidy programs typically rewrite your code (at least html-tidy and perl-tidy do), so I think that's definitely not a name we want, because we aren't doing that (or ever plan to do that). bashate ftw. Because if you can't have an inside joke buried within your naming of an open source project, what's the point. :) -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2014-06-13 03:04:07 -0700: > On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t > > care” from before). > > > > I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving > > at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it > > "python-bash8"? > > Yes, this is what will happen. > > > Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) > > should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” > > could be separate from the packaging / project name. > > If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to > carry patches which I'd have to maintain. > > > Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure > > bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that > > really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? > > Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the > Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import. > So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz. > For python _libraries_ yes. But for a utility which happens to import that library, naming the package after what upstream calls it is a de facto standard. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Mathew R Odden wrote: > I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the > strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine with > renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some time to work > through all the references. > > Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently (from > gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't very > descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes in python > package names :( > > My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the > easiest to transition to from the current name. > When I first saw bashate, my eyes focused on "hate" in there for some reason. Not sure if others noticed this, but my advice would be to stay away from it for that reason. basheight has the same euphemism without the harshness, IMHO. Though now that I type this, I do see "height" in there, though it's less offensive than "hate". Thanks, Kyle > Mathew Odden, Software Developer > IBM STG OpenStack Development > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
I am surprised this became a concern so quickly, but I do understand the strangeness of installing a 'bash8' binary on command line. I'm fine with renaming to 'bashate' or 'bash_tidy', but renames can take some time to work through all the references. Apparently Sean and I both thought of the 'bashate' name independently (from gpb => jeepyb) but I wasn't to keen on the idea since it isn't very descriptive. 'bash-tidy' makes more sense but we can't use dashes in python package names :( My vote would be for 'bashate' still, since I think that would be the easiest to transition to from the current name. Mathew Odden, Software Developer IBM STG OpenStack Development___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/13/2014 06:04 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t >> care” from before). >> >> I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving >> at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it >> "python-bash8"? > > Yes, this is what will happen. > >> Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) >> should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” >> could be separate from the packaging / project name. > > If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to > carry patches which I'd have to maintain. > >> Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure >> bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that >> really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? > > Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the > Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import. > So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz. > >> I just don’t >> see how if we don’t namespace collide on the executable side, how there >> can be any real confusion (python-bash8, sure pypi is a little >> different) over what is being installed. > > The problem is that bash8 doesn't express anything but "bash version 8", > unless you know pep8. Impinging on the bash namespace is something I'll almost buy, except that bash never ships with a version number. I'd be vaguely ameniable to renaming the package/binary to bashate, which is pronounced the same, but doesn't have the same namespacing problem. Will talk with Matt Odden about it today. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t > care” from before). > > I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving > at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it > "python-bash8"? Yes, this is what will happen. > Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) > should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” > could be separate from the packaging / project name. If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to carry patches which I'd have to maintain. > Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure > bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that > really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import. So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz. > I just don’t > see how if we don’t namespace collide on the executable side, how there > can be any real confusion (python-bash8, sure pypi is a little > different) over what is being installed. The problem is that bash8 doesn't express anything but "bash version 8", unless you know pep8. On 06/13/2014 07:32 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > As a user, I hate to have to follow the abstruse reasoning of a > random set of developers forcing a packager to pick a name for the > package that is different than the executable. A unicorn dies every > time `apt-get install sillypackage && sillypackage` results in "File > not found". Dang! that was my favorite unicorn. I agree. Names are important. Thomas ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On Thu 12 Jun 2014 03:53:35 PM PDT, Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving >> at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it >> "python-bash8"? Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) >> should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” >> could be separate from the packaging / project name. > > As a user, I hate to have to follow the abstruse reasoning of a random > set of developers forcing a packager to pick a name for the package > that is different than the executable. A unicorn dies every time > `apt-get install sillypackage && sillypackage` results in "File not > found". Dang! that was my favorite unicorn. Well, in this precise case, no random set of developers is forcing any packager to do anything. We develop a Python library called "bash8" (with an executable named "bash8") and a packager is trying to force us to rename it to something else, because its distribution doesn't like the name we chose. It's also interesting to note that in all cases (whether we follow Thomas suggestion or not), the Debian *binary* package will be named "python-bash8", which is apparently what you don't like. That's not because "a random set of developers is forcing upstream", that's due to Debian's own Python packaging rules. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On Thu 12 Jun 2014 03:53:35 PM PDT, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving > at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it > "python-bash8"? Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) > should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” > could be separate from the packaging / project name. As a user, I hate to have to follow the abstruse reasoning of a random set of developers forcing a packager to pick a name for the package that is different than the executable. A unicorn dies every time `apt-get install sillypackage && sillypackage` results in "File not found". Dang! that was my favorite unicorn. -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Hi Thomas, I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t care” from before). I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it "python-bash8"? Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” could be separate from the packaging / project name. Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? I just don’t see how if we don’t namespace collide on the executable side, how there can be any real confusion (python-bash8, sure pypi is a little different) over what is being installed. Cheers, Morgan — Morgan Fainberg From: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: June 12, 2014 at 15:19:00 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, 748...@bugs.debian.org 748...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker) On 06/12/2014 02:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > I'd hate to think what these guys think of firefox, grub, thunderbird, > pidgin, zope, git, mercurial, etc, etc. I don't see what point you're trying to make here. Firefox & Thunderbird were renamed because of trademark issues with the Mozilla foundation, and Debian (and the maintainers of these packages) still don't like renaming these packages. For Git, for a while, the package name was already taken by something else. As for Pidgin, Zope & Mercurial, I'm not aware of any issues we had... All this being said, I don't care so much myself. Yet this is a nuisance for me because I may have to deal with such bad naming. Either I ignore recommendations from other DDs, and it makes me feel bad in front of all the Debian project, or I get to deal with all sorts of renaming issues. So it'd be nice if upstream cared... Also, it's truth bash8 is a very poor name, which can be very confusing for our users. Something like bash-tidy or bashtidy would have been much better (even with an 8 at the end...). Thomas Goirand (zigo) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/12/2014 02:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > I'd hate to think what these guys think of firefox, grub, thunderbird, > pidgin, zope, git, mercurial, etc, etc. I don't see what point you're trying to make here. Firefox & Thunderbird were renamed because of trademark issues with the Mozilla foundation, and Debian (and the maintainers of these packages) still don't like renaming these packages. For Git, for a while, the package name was already taken by something else. As for Pidgin, Zope & Mercurial, I'm not aware of any issues we had... All this being said, I don't care so much myself. Yet this is a nuisance for me because I may have to deal with such bad naming. Either I ignore recommendations from other DDs, and it makes me feel bad in front of all the Debian project, or I get to deal with all sorts of renaming issues. So it'd be nice if upstream cared... Also, it's truth bash8 is a very poor name, which can be very confusing for our users. Something like bash-tidy or bashtidy would have been much better (even with an 8 at the end...). Thomas Goirand (zigo) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > On 06/11/2014 02:01 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> Honestly, I kind of don't care. :) > > +1 :-) > > +1 yep. that about covers it. Ordinarily I'd agree that naming is a bike shed argument, but strongly suggests that the package contains that major version of the project. Now it will be a long time before bash gets to 8.0, but it's still a pretty bad name. Though I don't care enough to write more than 5 sentences about it. I will think it's dumb every time I see it. Well off to write a bash script that generates ASCII art snakes and cats, gonna call it python4 (pronounced python-quatre). ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/11/2014 02:01 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > Honestly, I kind of don't care. :) +1 :-) +1 yep. that about covers it.___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
On 06/11/2014 02:01 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > Honestly, I kind of don't care. :) +1 :-) -- Russell Bryant ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Honestly, I kind of don't care. :)
It's more meaningful than most of what's on pypi for naming.
I'd hate to think what these guys think of firefox, grub, thunderbird,
pidgin, zope, git, mercurial, etc, etc.
-Sean
On 06/11/2014 12:09 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's looking like bash8 isn't great. It's too much python-centric. At
> least that's the view of multiple Debian Developers (not really mine, I
> honestly don't care that much...).
>
> Could we think about a better name?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker
> Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:54:01 +
> Resent-From: Guillem Jover
> Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
> Resent-CC: w...@debian.org, Thomas Goirand
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:49:47 +0200
> From: Guillem Jover
> Reply-To: Guillem Jover , 748...@bugs.debian.org
> To: Thomas Goirand , 748...@bugs.debian.org
> CC: Ben Finney , Andreas Metzler
>
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 09:49:04 -0400, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On Sat May 17 2014 07:46:16 AM EDT, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Certainly ‘bash8’ carries no reliable connotation of “style checker for
>>> Bash code”.
>>>
> This is a reference to "pep8" in the Python.
>>>
>>> In the Python community, “PEP 8” carries strong connotation of “code
>>> style conventions for Python code”. It is *only* because of that
>>> existing connotation that a package named ‘pep8’ implies what the
>>> package installs.
>>>
>>> The same is not true for the name ‘bash8’. It is unreasonable to expect
>>> the average Bash user looking at package names to get a reference to
>>> Python conventions.
>>>
>>> IMO, the package (source and binary) name should more explicitly carry
>>> an implication of what the package installs. Perhaps
>>> ‘bash8-style-checker’ or the like.
>>
>> It's ok, since the resulting binaries will be
>> "python{3,}-bash8". Our users don't get exposed
>> much to source package names, so I think it's ok
>> for me to choose bash8 as name to follow the one
>> upstream, though if you want I can use python-bash8.
>
> I've to agree with the other people complaining, the name is very
> confusing and as it is, it's a namespace grab. Prefixing it with
> «python-» only clarifies slightly, but at least it stops somewhat
> being a namespace grab, but it is still quite confusing. Please try
> to convince upstream to rename it, and do so in Debian regardless.
>
> Something like python-bash-pep8-style-checker would seem acceptable
> to me, there's probably better, shorter names that could be used
> though, maybe python-pep8-style-bash, or simply python-pep8-bash.
> With the «python3?-» prefix being a distribution specific thing.
>
> Also just following upstream when it comes to naming be it for source
> or binary packages is not wise in many cases. Lots of upstreams create
> packages or language modules in language silos, where those names are
> implicitly namespaced by being part of that language community/portal
> for example. Having Http be a perl module is fine, the same for a
> python or ruby module, not so much when it comes to integrating it
> in a general purpose distribution. Why should the http source package
> name be the perl implementation? Even if that source provided modules
> for many languages, why should it take over the canonical protocol
> name for its source package? Also the source package name is really
> pretty visible in many places in the distribution.
>
> The current practice of many python modules to just use the upstream
> name as the source package name is a namespace grab, wrong and unfair
> to the rest of the distribution, some quick examples to illustrate:
>
> appdirs argvalidate audioread distlib
>
> I wish other language teams in Debian followed the perl lead here.
>
> Thanks,
> Guillem
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
Hi,
It's looking like bash8 isn't great. It's too much python-centric. At
least that's the view of multiple Debian Developers (not really mine, I
honestly don't care that much...).
Could we think about a better name?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Original Message
Subject: Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:54:01 +
Resent-From: Guillem Jover
Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: w...@debian.org, Thomas Goirand
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:49:47 +0200
From: Guillem Jover
Reply-To: Guillem Jover , 748...@bugs.debian.org
To: Thomas Goirand , 748...@bugs.debian.org
CC: Ben Finney , Andreas Metzler
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 09:49:04 -0400, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On Sat May 17 2014 07:46:16 AM EDT, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Certainly ‘bash8’ carries no reliable connotation of “style checker for
> > Bash code”.
> >
> > > > This is a reference to "pep8" in the Python.
> >
> > In the Python community, “PEP 8” carries strong connotation of “code
> > style conventions for Python code”. It is *only* because of that
> > existing connotation that a package named ‘pep8’ implies what the
> > package installs.
> >
> > The same is not true for the name ‘bash8’. It is unreasonable to expect
> > the average Bash user looking at package names to get a reference to
> > Python conventions.
> >
> > IMO, the package (source and binary) name should more explicitly carry
> > an implication of what the package installs. Perhaps
> > ‘bash8-style-checker’ or the like.
>
> It's ok, since the resulting binaries will be
> "python{3,}-bash8". Our users don't get exposed
> much to source package names, so I think it's ok
> for me to choose bash8 as name to follow the one
> upstream, though if you want I can use python-bash8.
I've to agree with the other people complaining, the name is very
confusing and as it is, it's a namespace grab. Prefixing it with
«python-» only clarifies slightly, but at least it stops somewhat
being a namespace grab, but it is still quite confusing. Please try
to convince upstream to rename it, and do so in Debian regardless.
Something like python-bash-pep8-style-checker would seem acceptable
to me, there's probably better, shorter names that could be used
though, maybe python-pep8-style-bash, or simply python-pep8-bash.
With the «python3?-» prefix being a distribution specific thing.
Also just following upstream when it comes to naming be it for source
or binary packages is not wise in many cases. Lots of upstreams create
packages or language modules in language silos, where those names are
implicitly namespaced by being part of that language community/portal
for example. Having Http be a perl module is fine, the same for a
python or ruby module, not so much when it comes to integrating it
in a general purpose distribution. Why should the http source package
name be the perl implementation? Even if that source provided modules
for many languages, why should it take over the canonical protocol
name for its source package? Also the source package name is really
pretty visible in many places in the distribution.
The current practice of many python modules to just use the upstream
name as the source package name is a namespace grab, wrong and unfair
to the rest of the distribution, some quick examples to illustrate:
appdirs argvalidate audioread distlib
I wish other language teams in Debian followed the perl lead here.
Thanks,
Guillem
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
