Hello! Philipp Kern: > On 18.07.2018 20:38, ju xor wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2018-07-18 18:24, ju xor wrote: >>>> Philipp Kern:
>>>>> Should this live in some kind of tor-* namespace? >>>> no >>> Without any rationale? :( >> i'm not sure what you mean, but in case it helps, here some arguments >> why sbws package is not called something like tor-sbws: >> - upstream is not using "tor-*" in the name >> - i don't think there's a Debian policy to name packages as "tor-*" [0] > > Of course there isn't. But if the package is incredibly specialized, it > might make sense to do that anyhow. Debian is not bound to reuse the > upstream name, although in many cases it makes sense (first and foremost > when scripts are concerned, but there are plenty of other reasons). While that would be a good idea, I believe that software using "tor" in their name needs to be acknowledged by the Torproject, see https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html We've however seen from previous experience that software not made by the the Torproject is kindly requested to be named differently, hence for example Tails' previously called tor-monitor software has been renamed to "onioncircuits". >> - nyx, is a tor monitor, and is not called "tor-*" > > Fair. Although, to note, it used to be called tor-arm according to the > package's description. And it feels like the possible target audience of > sbws is even less than the one of nyx. That said: Maybe include the > target audience (i.e. who is going to have an interest in running this > package) somewhere in your description. If this is of interest to all > relay operators rather than just the authorities, that's probably relevant. I don't know what this name change was motivated by. >> - there're several packages called "onion*", which is not "tor-*" > > Well, tor-* was a proposal to disambiguate a short name. I don't > particularly care what the prefix would be. See above. If anything, the package could use the `onion` prefix in Debian, but as this is not policy and IMO even adds more complexity, it could also simply use the upstream name as initially suggested by Ju. Cheers! Ulrike