XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From:
[email protected]
Thanks for taking the time to comment Guillem.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, <
[email protected]> wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 23:14:49 +0000, Aidan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +0000, Aidan wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv":
Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would
like to call into question the naming of the package/application…
There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day),
especially
if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see
no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that "just" works with Docker.
Just by chance I had seen the mail on the mentors list, but thanks for
the heads-up, because I tend to look there very sporadically!
My reaction was pretty similar TBH. There's enough confusion with
things like dpkg-reconfigure and dpkg-preconfigure and other packages
that have also grabbed from the dpkg-* namespace, which I'd like to
reduce. In this case, it would remove the possibility to use such name
in the future, creates confusion, and it looks like a layer violation, because it's setting up apt, containers and stuff which should be
sitting on top and not below dpkg.
That's a good point about it looking like a layer violation.
As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on.
Thanks for taking a look David.
For the name I choose "dpkg'' because it stands for "debian package" and dpkg-buildenv is intrinsically related to debian packaging.
However I understand the usage of dpkg may imply the package has been officially created and maintained by the dpkg developers.
Yes, see above. I also appreciate naming is hard, :) but all other
similar implementations could have claimed the same about using dpkg-*,
and I think josch questions are also relevant, even though I also
understand that even among all other options, none might seem
completely suitable to you. But…
If the package's name was the last blocking issue preventing adoption in Debian then I would spend the time to rename it.
…regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd
still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool
upstream. :)
I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections
I'm going to rename it to:
"debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container"
Thanks,
Guillem
<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Thanks for taking the time to comment Guillem. </div><div><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, <<a href="mailto:guillem@
debian.org" target="_blank">
[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi!<br>
On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 23:14:49 +0000, Aidan wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote:<br>
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +0000, Aidan wrote:<br>
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv":<br>
> ><br>
> > Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was<br>
> > subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would<br> > > like to call into question the naming of the package/application…<br>
> ><br>
> > There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels<br>
> > wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), especially<br>
> > if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see<br>
> > no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that<br>
> > "just" works with Docker.<br>
Just by chance I had seen the mail on the mentors list, but thanks for<br>
the heads-up, because I tend to look there very sporadically!<br>
My reaction was pretty similar TBH. There's enough confusion with<br> things like dpkg-reconfigure and dpkg-preconfigure and other packages<br>
that have also grabbed from the dpkg-* namespace, which I'd like to<br> reduce. In this case, it would remove the possibility to use such name<br>
in the future, creates confusion, and it looks like a layer violation,<br> because it's setting up apt, containers and stuff which should be<br>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)