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 17:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87bm1wxp1l.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <20190326131842.7363.84034@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190326131844.C73EC209E3@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87imw4fuee.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2aso7zh.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87pnqcbbaz.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]:33727) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9BMr-0001nY-WC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:25:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9BMq-0004sV-KC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:25:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87pnqcbbaz.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?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> If the majority of distributions decides on a poor name, we don't have >> to repeat the same mistake ;) > > I agree, but there=E2=80=99s also a tension between that and not violatin= g the > =E2=80=9Cprinciple of least surprise=E2=80=9D. Sometimes the latter outw= eighs the > former. I agree and I'm pro the principle of least surprise. I believe the full package names do go in that direction. >>> 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 = the 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? > > I agree with what you=E2=80=99re saying but (1) we=E2=80=99re talking abo= ut package > name, which are different from fully spelled out =E2=80=9Cfancy names=E2= =80=9D (like > =E2=80=9CL=E2=80=99Abbaye des morts=E2=80=9D). > > For package names, our policy is to follow upstream=E2=80=99s own package= name. > For The Battle of Westnoth, it=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Cwestnoth=E2=80=9D. Our current policy is to follow upstream _project names_, which is often different from the package name. From=20the manual: =2D-8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Both are usually the same and correspond to the lowercase conversion of the project name chosen upstream, with underscores replaced with hyphens. For instance, GNUnet is available as =E2=80=98gnunet=E2=80=99, an= d SDL_net as =E2=80=98sdl-net=E2=80=99. =2D-8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- If you want to follow upstream _package_ names, then we should fix the manual I think. > By doing that, we make the user=E2=80=99s lives easier in that they may a= lready > be familiar with this short name. If, instead, we try to roll our own > that neither distros nor upstream uses, then we=E2=80=99re not helping pe= ople. Isn't it the other way around? I think that we would be rolling our own package name by using short names. Using the official full project name is an attempt to prevent the spreading of self-rolled names, in my opinion. > Completion helps, I agree, but not everyone uses Helm either. If you=E2= =80=99re > in Bash and type =E2=80=9Cguix package -i w=E2=80=9D and don=E2=80= =99t see =E2=80=9Cwestnoth=E2=80=9D, > you=E2=80=99re unhappy, and user unhappiness is bad. :-) But that's true the other way around too: A user could expect "battle-for-wesnoth" and with guix package -i b and be disappointed. I believe there is a confusion around orthogonal problems: =2D Naming: it's about identifying package objects. This is at the semantic level, nothing practical here. This is user facing. =2D Search / completion interface (bash completion and the like). The problem is with Bash, not with names. Bash completion equally fails at completing short names if the prefix is wrong (sl bring up a steam locomotive on some systems :p). This is true for all sort of "prefix-based" completion systems. We have ungoogled-chromium after all, not something many people on the plan= et would expect! :p But I like it and I think it's a good name :) > In a GUI things may be different because the package name doesn=E2=80=99t= matter > that much. Bash completion is a UI ;) The reason this whole thread started is because the original poster failed to find some games among our package because of arguably not so trivial names. It has happened before that a package got packaged twice because of different naming. I believe we should strive at removing any ambiguity in package names. Our package names have the status of global variables: they are the names which, I think, matter the most. =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlybo/YACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH/tRgf+OUWvXNh9eCNgHYIWk8I7MKd4uCbkjJf0/Znto7U0QijESNM4PvIipGAk MSu5YtlbmwGMi/OIfcwtcqUW40ipVBsD2nbOgvqLukuNoVg+EFv5owr/pR8C5uLR RPv6hxh4v/8dgMy//jKwHFmbQZr3kJRCPEk0rsJV18XYuX5gNdCdqdaspiL20GiS flUhdXceGB0YPd4bR1CnNIt/ynVQYy8vGm5ocFPaC5QaR4rpt52Q6H0UpvWcZP2L ar6wFX2mWytGcVMbvJdKu3fOK8jqAeQ9hZrzQ89hCTd9/1alE6MGgVMgd2sWumJO CXnrECd/DN/F1Bg3bbcJm9yrWTl3gg== =7yRE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--