I'll gladly rename the package and try again. Since I got no official rejection AFAIR from any ftp-master, should I just do the rename and seek another sponsorship upload?
Thanks ZK On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 15:19:38 +0100, Steve Cotton wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 14:05 +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > > > I saw the package being uploaded to NEW just a moment ago. I could > rename > > > it to python-releases (I don't think there's a standard naming scheme > for > > > sphinx extensions yet). What do you think? > > > > I find "python-releases" confusing in the same way. If I saw > > > > "Bug #xxxxxx is in stable python-releases but fixed in unstable > python-releases." > > > > then I'd understand that it was a bug in the python2.7 & python3.2 > > packages, not a bug in a package called "python-releases". > > > > I prefer a name that doesn't look like the name of another package > > followed by the word "releases". Maybe "python-releaseslog". > > Or python-sphinx-releases, python-sphinx.releases or something like that, > there's few precedents for the former on the archive already. I think it > would be nice to discuss this on the debian-python list to try to come > to an agreement on the namespace, because simply using the non-namespaced > upstream module name is really not good for the overall distribution. > > Please make sure to rename both binary and *source* packages. > > > Note: I'm not a DD, if no DD is complaining then maybe it's not > confusing. > > I just saw it in NEW and I've to agree it is very confusing. I think > people might usually notice when it's already in the archive which > implies going through NEW again, package removal requests, possibly > transitional packages, etc, which might deter them from mentioning it > or filing bug reports. > > IMO the ftp-masters are not rejecting enough packages when it comes > to namespace problems. > > Thanks, > Guillem >
