* Scott Kitterman: > On Friday, April 24, 2020 11:54:17 AM EDT Kan-Ru Chen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, at 12:34 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 11:11:49 AM EDT Kan-Ru Chen wrote: >> > > * Package name : nss-tls Description : encrypted glibc name >> > > >> > > resolving library which uses DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) >> > > >> > > nss-tls is an alternative, encrypted name resolving library to use >> > > with glibc, which uses DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH). >> > >> > Without knowing more that what is in the ITP, nss-tls seems like a >> > counter- >> > intuitive name for something that doesn't use TLS, but instead HTTPS. >> >> Indeed, I agree it is counter-intuitive! If I am starting a new project >> I would probably call it nss-doh or nss-https. >> >> > Is this really the best name for the package? Could you explain the >> > background behind the name? >> >> The only reason right now is because it's the name used by upstream. I >> choose to keep the current name and mention DoH in the description to >> help search. >> >> I plan to ask upstream author if they intend to support DoT in the >> future then the name makes a little more sense. Otherwise if they can >> change the name to nss-https or something else to avoid confusion. > > Would it make sense to resolve that with upstream before introducing this to > Debian? It would save a trip through New and the confusion inherent in > package name instability.
The NSS mmodule is called “tls”: | Then, add "tls" to the "hosts" entry in /etc/nsswitch.conf, before | "dns" or anything else that contains "dns". Renaming it would be a breaking change. As long as the module has this name, “nss-tls” does not seem inappropriate to me (although I agree that it's not ideal).