From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: 06/15: gnu: wesnoth-server: Rename package to the-battle-for-wesnoth-server. Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:11:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87a7hgfu7f.fsf@gnu.org> 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: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h96Sl-0004Jj-V9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:11:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190326175303.GA6723@jurong> (Andreas Enge's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:53:03 +0100") 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 Hello, Andreas Enge skribis: > 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. +1 I agree with Ricardo that prior discussion would have been necessary. I think it=E2=80=99s now clear that this case does not fall under the =E2=80=9Cnon-controversial=E2=80=9D category that =E2=80=98HACKING=E2=80=99= mentions. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.