From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Baumann Subject: Re: proper name for userspace package? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:36:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4A71E82C.1040208@debian.org> References: <4A71CA72.8080106@redhat.com> <20090731.023234.56054455.ryusuke@osrg.net> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090731.023234.56054455.ryusuke-sG5X7nlA6pw@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, users-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org 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/