Thanks for taking the time to comment Guillem. On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, <guil...@debian.org> wrote:
> 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. > That's a good point about it looking like a layer violation. > > > > 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. :) I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections I'm going to rename it to: "debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container" > > Thanks, > Guillem >
