[Vmdebootstrap-devel] Bug#804315: Namespace issues

[Antonio Terceiro]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:51:24PM +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Neil Williams <codehelp at debian.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:32 +1100
> > "Michael ." <keltoiboy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >There is no namespace issue, we are building on the existing
> >> >live-config
> >> and
> >> >live-boot packages that are maintained and bringing these into
> >> >Debian as native projects. If necessary, these will be forks, but
> >> >I'm hoping that won't have to happen and that we can integrate these
> >> >packages into Debian and continue development in a collaborative
> >> >manner.
> >>
> >> Actually there is and I think any person who works in a legal capacity
> >> would verify that.
> >
> > No, in the Debian project, no team has exclusive rights over package
> > namespaces - filename conflicts are different. Namespacing should be
> > consistent with the purpose of the package to avoid confusion.
> > live-build-ng is the next generation of build tool for live images. The
> > name is appropriate.
> 
> Obviously, several users don't agree with you. There's a conflict of
> interest in the naming of your new package, which confuse established
> users base of live-build. live-build-ng isn't a drop in replacement of
> live-build, or live-build deprecated in any way (except its usage by
> Debian CD team).

I do agree that naming something $foo-ng indeed sends a very strong,
even if implicit, message about $foo, which is not the case here.

On the other hand, there is no good reason why this new tool _needs_ to
be called live-build-ng, so can you please call it something else?

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/vmdebootstrap-devel/attachments/20151109/ebe54b26/attachment.sig>