From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: 05/15: gnu: wesnoth: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth. Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:46:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87r2aso7zh.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190326131844.C73EC209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87imw4fuee.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:60614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h970q-0007kl-LB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:46:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h970p-0006af-Go for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:46:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87imw4fuee.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Apologies if I missed a previous discussion on this topic, but=E2=80=A6 I= =E2=80=99m > skeptical about the renames. I assume that the original names were > those commonly used in distributions, which in itself may be a good > reason to keep them. Names may vary a lot across distributions. Especially when it comes to games, since they tend to have more exotic titles. If the majority of distributions decides on a poor name, we don't have to repeat the same mistake ;) > Those names are also used upstream in some cases: the tarball for > wesnoth is called =E2=80=9Cwestnoth*.tar.gz=E2=80=9D, for example, and th= e GitHub > project of L=E2=80=99Abbaye des morts is =E2=80=9Cabbayedesmorts=E2=80=9D= (no =E2=80=98l=E2=80=99). Like our > naming guidelines say (info "(guix) Package Naming"), we should try to > stick to the upstream name. > > Thoughts? I think it's important to ask "why should we name a package this way." What's the rationale behind a package name? We are facing the users, not package maintainers. Users are not supposed to know about: =2D domain names =2D tarball names =2D github names Those are details, in my understanding, reserved to developers and packagers. More often than not, those shortened names are used because of technical limitations (e.g. character length). We don't have to forward those limitations on ourselves. I think it makes sense that we expose to the users names that speaks to them, i.e. the "official project full name". Finally, as I mentioned above with the completion systems that we have, we've got nothing to lose in having long names. My two cents :) =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlybYpIACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH9krgf/W5aGb3Svvc+HlFQWwY0b4BBjADGUpEBVzYxpJFV18aWwmUXdHatIWsma H8UCCmfv5Xv0WoZEL9Kkr9+wJAUj2hSUffwoWxf1nbkHEu6c1+3bSA1UvNKNNf5J aPzqxOkqFcmPow9OHRMkmx7ILT0pTHmLnQ0A8g/0zUfn7YMAqcfAUbQ/D8JTfsBo jZjj+Gk73AGn0V2R5buI4fSTHQUNBYuWsM4Jx3BiGU8uOmhp3QbvGbtBT5jOb9c6 fhKmz/LOpHrQHVZTeQG05kBK1wVJDwFD5ZwqGFGcO4dDcUiOFFQn6PWvalZ1jNSQ K3YxFm1kfNt1hszuO03gh3Y9dhQM5w== =Ct8O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--