Re: Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner
Hello! Philipp Kern: > On 18.07.2018 20:38, ju xor wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote: Philipp Kern: > Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace? no >>> Without any rationale? :( >> i'm not sure what you mean, but in case it helps, here some arguments >> why sbws package is not called something like tor-sbws: >> - upstream is not using "tor-*" in the name >> - i don't think there's a Debian policy to name packages as "tor-*" [0] > > Of course there isn't. But if the package is incredibly specialized, it > might make sense to do that anyhow. Debian is not bound to reuse the > upstream name, although in many cases it makes sense (first and foremost > when scripts are concerned, but there are plenty of other reasons). While that would be a good idea, I believe that software using "tor" in their name needs to be acknowledged by the Torproject, see https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html We've however seen from previous experience that software not made by the the Torproject is kindly requested to be named differently, hence for example Tails' previously called tor-monitor software has been renamed to "onioncircuits". >> - nyx, is a tor monitor, and is not called "tor-*" > > Fair. Although, to note, it used to be called tor-arm according to the > package's description. And it feels like the possible target audience of > sbws is even less than the one of nyx. That said: Maybe include the > target audience (i.e. who is going to have an interest in running this > package) somewhere in your description. If this is of interest to all > relay operators rather than just the authorities, that's probably relevant. I don't know what this name change was motivated by. >> - there're several packages called "onion*", which is not "tor-*" > > Well, tor-* was a proposal to disambiguate a short name. I don't > particularly care what the prefix would be. See above. If anything, the package could use the `onion` prefix in Debian, but as this is not policy and IMO even adds more complexity, it could also simply use the upstream name as initially suggested by Ju. Cheers! Ulrike
Re: Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner
On 18.07.2018 20:38, ju xor wrote: > Philipp Kern: >> On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote: >>> Philipp Kern: Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace? >>> no >> Without any rationale? :( > i'm not sure what you mean, but in case it helps, here some arguments > why sbws package is not called something like tor-sbws: > > - upstream is not using "tor-*" in the name > - i don't think there's a Debian policy to name packages as "tor-*" [0] Of course there isn't. But if the package is incredibly specialized, it might make sense to do that anyhow. Debian is not bound to reuse the upstream name, although in many cases it makes sense (first and foremost when scripts are concerned, but there are plenty of other reasons). > - AFAICT, the only package in Debian that is named as "tor-*" is > "tor-geoipbd", and that's a package on which "tor" itself depends on. > - "tor" itself does not depends on sbws, though sbws makes use of "tor" > - python3-stem is a library to control tor on which sbws depends, and > it's not called "tor-*" I guess I was mostly concerned about the global namespace rather than a library-specific one. > - nyx, is a tor monitor, and is not called "tor-*" Fair. Although, to note, it used to be called tor-arm according to the package's description. And it feels like the possible target audience of sbws is even less than the one of nyx. That said: Maybe include the target audience (i.e. who is going to have an interest in running this package) somewhere in your description. If this is of interest to all relay operators rather than just the authorities, that's probably relevant. > - there're several packages called "onion*", which is not "tor-*" Well, tor-* was a proposal to disambiguate a short name. I don't particularly care what the prefix would be. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Re: Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner
Philipp Kern: > On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace? >> no > > Without any rationale? :( > i'm not sure what you mean, but in case it helps, here some arguments why sbws package is not called something like tor-sbws: - upstream is not using "tor-*" in the name - i don't think there's a Debian policy to name packages as "tor-*" [0] - AFAICT, the only package in Debian that is named as "tor-*" is "tor-geoipbd", and that's a package on which "tor" itself depends on. - "tor" itself does not depends on sbws, though sbws makes use of "tor" - python3-stem is a library to control tor on which sbws depends, and it's not called "tor-*" - nyx, is a tor monitor, and is not called "tor-*" - there're several packages called "onion*", which is not "tor-*" Best, ju. [0] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#the-package-name
Re: Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner
On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote: Philipp Kern: Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace? no Without any rationale? :( Kind regards Philipp Kern
Bug#903977: ITP: sbws -- Simple Bandwidth Scanner
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Package name: sbws Version: 1.0.0 Upstream Author: Matt Traudt URL: https://gitweb.torproject.org/sbws.git/ License: CC0 Description: Simple Bandwidth Scanner Tor bandwidth scanner that generates bandwidth list (measurements) files to be read by Directory Authorities.
