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. > > 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. :) Thanks, Guillem
