proper name for userspace package?

proper name for userspace package?

[Eric Sandeen]

I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.

The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a
preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?

Thanks,
-Eric

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Ryusuke Konishi]

(Cc added to Debian maintainer)
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:29:38 -0500, Eric Sandeen <sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.
> 
> The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a
> preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric

I don't know the how and why.  The btrfs was also packaged with the
"-tools" convention in Debian.  On the one hand, we can see all the
convensions like "-utils", "-tools", and "progs" there.

Personally, I like the "-tools" convension for new ones.

Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Eric Sandeen]

Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> (Cc added to Debian maintainer)
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:29:38 -0500, Eric Sandeen <sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.
>>
>> The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a
>> preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Eric
> 
> I don't know the how and why.  The btrfs was also packaged with the
> "-tools" convention in Debian.  On the one hand, we can see all the
> convensions like "-utils", "-tools", and "progs" there.
> 
> Personally, I like the "-tools" convension for new ones.
> 
> Regards,
> Ryusuke Konishi
> 

Ok, thanks.  If it was due to a debian convention, then I may wind up
following the Fedora convention (if there is one ;)

-Eric

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Daniel Baumann]

Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>> The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a
>> preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?

it's my own aim to get some sort of uniformity with package names in
debian, so that we have $filesystem-tools for new packages. new means
basically almost anything after e2fsutils.

actually, i should rename it from nilfs2-tools to nilfs-tools.
unfortunately, in debian we have a quite stupid thing called NEW queue
which make such a simple rename have a penalty of 4 to 8 weeks of
waiting until ftp-masters unblock it. but i still might do that at some
point (unless Ryusuke dislikes it ;).

for fedora/rh, if you don't have people with a quirk for uniformity, you
might just want to go with the upstream name as it's the way of the
least surprise for the user.

Regards,
Daniel

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann-uDfGT2BMUjhJc61us3aD9uTW4wlIGRCZ@public.gmane.org
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Ryusuke Konishi]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:36:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> >> The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a
> >> preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
> 
> it's my own aim to get some sort of uniformity with package names in
> debian, so that we have $filesystem-tools for new packages. new means
> basically almost anything after e2fsutils.

Thanks.  I felt this implicitly, and now I get it straight from you.
 
> actually, i should rename it from nilfs2-tools to nilfs-tools.
> unfortunately, in debian we have a quite stupid thing called NEW queue
> which make such a simple rename have a penalty of 4 to 8 weeks of
> waiting until ftp-masters unblock it. but i still might do that at some
> point (unless Ryusuke dislikes it ;).

Well, I don't mind either.  I'm accountable for part of the confusion
especially for the version number ;)

"nilfs-tools" sounds simpler. Umm, actually it would be better in the
long term because the nilfs package already has versions related to
the filesystem version (e.g. -2.x.y).  At least I don't have any
reason to object to the rename.

I just realized that ocfs2-tools package has versions 1.x.y.


Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Daniel Baumann]

Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> "nilfs-tools" sounds simpler. Umm, actually it would be better in the
> long term because the nilfs package already has versions related to
> the filesystem version (e.g. -2.x.y).  At least I don't have any
> reason to object to the rename.

ok, i think so too. i just renamed in debian (well, i've uploaded it..
it will not wait for 0 to \infty for ftp-masters re-approval in the NEW
queue :/).

> I just realized that ocfs2-tools package has versions 1.x.y.

i heard, that ocfs2 is called ocfs2 because ocfs1 was oracle intern
only. not sure if that's true though.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann-uDfGT2BMUjhJc61us3aD9uTW4wlIGRCZ@public.gmane.org
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

Re: proper name for userspace package?

[Chris Samuel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:04:38 am Daniel Baumann wrote:

> i heard, that ocfs2 is called ocfs2 because ocfs1 was oracle intern
> only. not sure if that's true though.

No, it's not. :-)   OCFS2 is a POSIX compliant filesystem, OCFS isn't.

http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs/

# Note: OCFS is not intended to be a POSIX compliant file system, there are no
# guarantees that timestamp updates or inode changes are similar in behaviour
# as other filesystems on the same platform or especially on different
# operating systems. Version 1 is specifically designed for Oracle Database
# files, create, move, delete and backup. It is well possible that certain OS
# commands will show different results, this is not considered a malfunction
# inside ocfs. We try when possible and where possible to stick to standard
# behaviour with error messages, e.g. ENOSPACE, etc. However, at the minimum,
# what is required for Oracle to work properly is implemented, anything more
# is not a guarantee.

-- 
 Chris Samuel  :  http://www.csamuel.org/  :  Melbourne, VIC

This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic.
For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org
https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users