Your message dated Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:21:06 +0900
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#285398: muscle: package name
conflicts with existing M.U.S.C.L.E. project
has caused the Debian Bug report #285398,
regarding muscle: package name conflicts with existing M.U.S.C.L.E. project
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
285398: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=285398
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: muscle
Severity: important
The package muscle was added to Debian this week. It is a molecular
biology tool dealing with molecules in general, it is not related to
the biology subject of muscle tissue or the biochemistry of said
tissue. The name muscle is an acronym of the upstream project.
There are two groups of Debian packages which would be easily
confused with this package if it retains the name currently chosen:
One group is the M.U.S.C.L.E. project hosted at alioth. This long
established project to integrate Smart Card support in GNU/Linux
systems (not just Debian) is the upstream source of all existing
Debian packages containing the substring "muscle", including
muscletools, libmusclecard and others.
Another group is any future biology or medical science packages
actually dealing with any aspect of muscle tissue. Whomever ends up
packaging such software for Debian would be quite surprised to see
the most obvious package name taken for an unrelated topic in the
same general area of science.
For these reasons I strongly suggest that the name of this package be
changed to something less confusing such as "molecule-muscle" or
"chemistry-muscle" or "chem-muscle".
The Maintainer can undoubtedly come up with more names, the important
characteristic of a good name is that it makes it obvious that the
package is neither part of the M.U.S.C.L.E. series of smartcard
support packages, nor the package to install if the user is working
on muscle tissue related tasks (be it in vivo or in vitro, at the
level of sports, anatomy, physiology, cellular biology, biochemistry
or other levels).
Sincerely
Jakob Bohm
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18jbj3.1.64
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=da_DK (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Andreas,
Le Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:07:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> once we are at renaming issues: IMHO we should simply close this bug report.
> I fail to se a real problem here. There is only one binary /usr/bin/muscle
> so there is no conflict regarding policy and the fact that package names
> are quite similar is not really nice but they are definitely distinguishable
> via short description and so I would like to close this bug.
Agreed. Although I would name the package muscle-align if it were new, I do not
think that a renaming is worth the effort.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--- End Message ---
