On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I think the package name should indicate the field for which it is > > meant (freebayes-genetic-variance), > > At least its good to know that ftpmaster is reading here to not accept > previously uploaded package wis unchanged name. ;-) > > I'm fine with changing that one and will ask on Debian Med name whether > above suggestion sounds good.
When discussing the issue with a Debian Med sprint member I've got other good reasons to even keep the package name despite the fact that its quite generic. When looking outside the Debian box other distributions might package the same software at best under the original name since they are not that picky about generic names and at worst under different names which would add more confusion than a less generic name might avoid. Furthermore there is some effort called bio.tools[1] (members of this effort regularly joining Debian Med sprints) who are very keen on all the metadata that are assembled with Debian packages and can be easily fetched from UDD. They consider taking the Debian Source package name as a key in their database. While I'm personally not convinced that this is the best idea we probably should not artificially diverge from names that would be expceted by potential consumers of our data. Finally when doing a websearch for freebayes the said project is the first hit which might be a further arguent to stick to the name that was choosen by upstream. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://bio.tools/ -- http://fam-tille.de