On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ognyan Kulev <ogn...@ognyankulev.com> wrote:
> (Why #766321 is not included in this mail thread?) > > На 23.10.2014 г. в 11:54 ч., Jorge Sebastião Soares написа: > >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> >> wrote: >> Also, the name might be too general. The program name is the same as >> the format >> it reads. This makes it look as if this program is the somehow >> *official* way >> to read, write and manipulate fasta/fastaq files. >> >> >> I'm not sure I agree with this statement. >> If we called it fastaq-tools, this could also be seen as the *official* >> way to deal with fasta or fastq files. >> >> But you don't see programs >> called jpeg or odt or avi in Debian either. Maybe you should >> convince upstream >> to use a more unique name than the file format it operates on. >> >> >> I know exactly what you mean and I agree to a certain extent. >> I had actually mentioned it at the Debian Med sprint meeting as >> packaging fastaq was one of the actions that came out of the sprint. >> >> However we (me and upstream that sits behind me) believe this is a short >> name that expresses, along with a proper description, what the software >> does. >> Nowhere will we say that fastaq is the ultimate way to manipulate, >> write, read, season, cook or serve fasta or fastq files. We will, >> however, think it. :) >> > > There is no file format "fastaq", only "fasta" and "fastq". And there is a > very popular package already with one-letter difference compared to file > format name: "fastqc". So I think "fastaq" as package name is OK. > Thank you for the contribution Ognyan. To add to this, fastaq was already used in one publication from our group. Best, Jorge
