Re: 05/15: gnu: wesnoth: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth.

[swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1692 bytes --]

On 2019-03-29 16:16, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:02:00PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>> I still think this change should be reverted
> 
> I also think so.

Agreed, I remember having proposed and gotten a 1 name change through
the patch-review-process and that worked fine and that I had to
deprecate the old name properly to get it accepted.

Pierre would you be willing to prepare some patches to include the long
names/project names in the descriptions instead and send them to the
patches-list?

> 
> The wording in the naming guidelines is intentionally a bit vague;
> the intention was definitely to take in general the tarball name, or maybe
> if this does not fit the domain name or something "similarly canonical".
> The tarball name does not always work, for instance in cases where it is
> "v0.15.zip". So we cannot have a strict rule, but the idea was to take the
> "canonical short name". When writing the section, I did not expect this
> part to lead to controversies; the real question was how to handle special
> characters (lowercase, replace underscores with dashes), and what to do
> for (at the time) python packages.
> 
> I am happy to make the wording clearer. But I am not sure whether replacing
> "project name" by "package name" makes a difference. What is a "package"?
> But if you think it is better, why not.
> 
> We could also add "short" in front of "projet"/"package name", and maybe
> add that this usually corresponds to something like the base name of the
> tarball, the git repository name or the domain where the project is hosted.
> 
> What do you think?

👍


-- 
Cheers Swedebugia


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]