From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: 06/15: gnu: wesnoth-server: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth-server. Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:25:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87ftr9bihh.fsf@bababa.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190326131845.1B177209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87zhph1y9s.fsf@nckx> <87pnqd4qb3.fsf@elephly.net> <87imw5irc1.fsf@bababa.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20190326175303.GA6723@jurong> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58865) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h8r0V-0007QN-8F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:41:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h8qlm-0002gy-Ra for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:25:57 -0400 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:34691) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h8qli-0002fs-B6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:25:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190326175303.GA6723@jurong> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andreas Enge writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:32:46PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: >> Sorry, I misunderstood the conclusion of the discussion: I thought that >> we would simply follow the package naming convention as per the manual. > > I am confused about this statement. The naming convention speaks a bit > vaguely of "project name chosen upstream"; very often, this means the > tarball name. Now there is www.wesnoth.org, which distributes tarballs and > executable files called wesnoth.*. So I would argue that the upstream > name is "wesnoth" and would suggest to revert this change. I personally don't find the term "project name" vague, I think it refers to something very specific. In particular, in my understanding the term "project name" was chosen to emphasize that it's not the tarball name (or the domain name). > This is in a similar spirit to "gcc" for instance; we do not call it > "gnu-compiler-collection" either, although this is the long name used > on their project web page. Well, actually why not? :) This would be more consistent, make more sense and be more newbie friendly, something that acronyms never are. ("gcc" could be in the synopsis or the description.) =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlyabqoACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH8DFwgAp+mYVHY6b6wzhjSi2lwiZLysUJtNwYxHoCbJilXme5Gb0yVD6Ry38n2h sx5y3dr8jvVNuwEZvh3tRajEfUYkJTKmvEoyO4XpFxDiI9xdBUprktqbP68UKwUe Xh/aEodl6kswTPjBC7vqZW6AjbsZMoWtgNKH9pvM06269BgKtWEd5L1DOgOvfmwR DxIQBVNj4firb9x46YRkSTIodplPjBRyKuZE+fI4O81Tsi58B7Bh9UT/3hWHl3tl hQbm+SxLeJeevO1emNyu+txVT2TQ461vfVfL/IEN2RtqlayCdlXAcgiLy14EasIZ dqdWz+39+VCiGuvuQ8vn6cW+eC4QeQ== =Sc7d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--