Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: On 13249 March 1977, Per Andersson wrote: There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman[1], for which there's an RFP already[2], as well as a component of that, foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict. I saw this but decided to ignore it for now since there hasn't been any activity with Foreman in over a year. If the name conflict arise in Debian it is a pretty small matter to change it then I think. I.e. Foreman[1] renaming to theforeman as the upstream web page or this foreman renaming to ruby-foreman or some such, it is not a big thing IMHO. In Debian its actually a pretty big matter. The more so the longer the wrongly named package exists in Debian. So it is *much* preferred to not have it at all, if the conflict is known from the beginning. I came to the same conclusion myself. I asked ftpmasters to reject the uploaded foreman from NEW, which they did. Package is since renamed to ruby-foreman (as can be seen in the bug title), although not uploaded yet. Best, Per -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Faidon Liambotis parav...@debian.org wrote: On 06/10/13 03:46, Per Andersson wrote: * Package name: foreman Version : 0.63.0 Upstream Author : David Dollar da...@dollar.io * URL : http://github.com/ddollar/foreman * License : MIT Programming Lang: Ruby Description : manage Procfile-based applications Foreman is a manager for Procfile-based applications. Its aim is to abstract away the details of the Procfile format, and allow you to either run your application directly or export it to some other process management format. There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman[1], for which there's an RFP already[2], as well as a component of that, foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict. I saw this but decided to ignore it for now since there hasn't been any activity with Foreman in over a year. If the name conflict arise in Debian it is a pretty small matter to change it then I think. I.e. Foreman[1] renaming to theforeman as the upstream web page or this foreman renaming to ruby-foreman or some such, it is not a big thing IMHO. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best to avoid a package naming conflict between the two apparently completely unrelated applications. I agree. Oh, and BTW, you should probably explain what a Procfile is on the long description of your package as it's not immediately obvious. I will add this. Thanks for taking the time to make Debian better! Best, Per Regards, Faidon 1: http://www.theforeman.org/ 2: http://bugs.debian.org/663101 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
On 13249 March 1977, Per Andersson wrote: There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman[1], for which there's an RFP already[2], as well as a component of that, foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict. I saw this but decided to ignore it for now since there hasn't been any activity with Foreman in over a year. If the name conflict arise in Debian it is a pretty small matter to change it then I think. I.e. Foreman[1] renaming to theforeman as the upstream web page or this foreman renaming to ruby-foreman or some such, it is not a big thing IMHO. In Debian its actually a pretty big matter. The more so the longer the wrongly named package exists in Debian. So it is *much* preferred to not have it at all, if the conflict is known from the beginning. -- bye, Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
Subject: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications Package: wnpp Owner: Per Andersson avtob...@gmail.com Severity: wishlist * Package name: foreman Version : 0.63.0 Upstream Author : David Dollar da...@dollar.io * URL : http://github.com/ddollar/foreman * License : MIT Programming Lang: Ruby Description : manage Procfile-based applications Foreman is a manager for Procfile-based applications. Its aim is to abstract away the details of the Procfile format, and allow you to either run your application directly or export it to some other process management format. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
On 06/10/13 03:46, Per Andersson wrote: * Package name: foreman Version : 0.63.0 Upstream Author : David Dollar da...@dollar.io * URL : http://github.com/ddollar/foreman * License : MIT Programming Lang: Ruby Description : manage Procfile-based applications Foreman is a manager for Procfile-based applications. Its aim is to abstract away the details of the Procfile format, and allow you to either run your application directly or export it to some other process management format. There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman[1], for which there's an RFP already[2], as well as a component of that, foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best to avoid a package naming conflict between the two apparently completely unrelated applications. Oh, and BTW, you should probably explain what a Procfile is on the long description of your package as it's not immediately obvious. Regards, Faidon 1: http://www.theforeman.org/ 2: http://bugs.debian.org/663101 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
