[openstack-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Debian people don't like bash8 as a project name (Bug#748383: ITP: bash8 -- bash script style guide checker)
zigo at debian.org
Fri Jun 13 10:04:07 UTC 2014
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
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.
More information about the OpenStack-dev