Naming packages from apache.org

[Orion Poplawski]

crossposting to java and packaging -

Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from 
apache.org, particularly commons.apache.org.  We already have lots of 
"jakarta-commons-*" packages, but now "commons" is an ex-jakarta project 
and jakarta.apache.org/commons redirects to commons.apache.org.  Same 
with jakarta taglibs (although that moved to tomcat).

As of now, the only apache-* package I know of is apache-ivy, which I 
would have named simply "ivy".  I've got a package request in for 
"commons-jexl"[1], but it has been suggested that it be named 
apache-commons-jexl.  If it were named that I would want a Provides: 
commons-jexl much like most jakarta-commons-* packages, so it doesn't 
really clean up the namespace any (just adds to it in fact).

commons-* is a lousy name though too, be very generic.

So, I'm fine with either (although I think it's quite possible that 
"apache commons" could get renamed again), but at this juncture before a 
bunch more packages come in from apache commons, I think we should make 
a decision and stick with it.

1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531379

[Andrew Overholt]

* Orion Poplawski  [2010-01-06 16:02]:
> before a bunch more packages come in from apache commons, I think we
> should make a decision and stick with it.

I vote for apache-commons-*.  I also think a re-name with suitable
Provides/Obsoletes is in order.

Andrew

[Mat Booth]

2010/1/7 Andrew Overholt :
> Orion Poplawski  [2010-01-06 16:02]:
> > before a bunch more packages come in from apache commons, I think we
> > should make a decision and stick with it.
>
> I vote for apache-commons-*.  I also think a re-name with suitable
> Provides/Obsoletes is in order.

+1

I've had TODOs in my Jarkarta packages about this for a while now.

[Rex Dieter]

Orion Poplawski wrote:
> crossposting to java and packaging -
>
> Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from
> apache.org

Sorry for the old followup, but I vaguely recall there been some old badness
about using the name "apache" (ie, notice the package named 'httpd' in the
distro).  I wonder if this is still a problem?

-- Rex

[Fernando Nasser]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > crossposting to java and packaging -
> >
> > Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from
> > apache.org
>
> Sorry for the old followup, but I vaguely recall there been some old badness
> about using the name "apache" (ie, notice the package named 'httpd' in the
> distro).  I wonder if this is still a problem?

Never heard about it.  We recently created some apache-* that will be 
submitted some time in the future....

Same for objectweb-* (like our objectweb-asm), codehaus-* etc.

We did have a problem with sun-* but that was in ancient times.  We used 
glassfish-* as one can get most of the sources with compatible licenses 
from that project.

I hope that helps.

Fernando

[Andrew Overholt]

* Rex Dieter  [2010-01-13 14:59]:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > crossposting to java and packaging -
> >
> > Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from
> > apache.org
>
> Sorry for the old followup, but I vaguely recall there been some old badness
> about using the name "apache" (ie, notice the package named 'httpd' in the
> distro).  I wonder if this is still a problem?

I see a few existing packages with apache in the name:

ace-apache
ant-apache-bcel

They're both sub-packages - does that make a difference?

Andrew

[Gary Benson]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > crossposting to java and packaging -
> >
> > Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from
> > apache.org
>
> Sorry for the old followup, but I vaguely recall there been some old
> badness about using the name "apache" (ie, notice the package named
> 'httpd' in the distro).  I wonder if this is still a problem?

As I remember it, the Apache Software Foundation renamed their package
from "apache" to "httpd".  They wanted to stress that "Apache" was the
software foundation, and that the software foundation was more than
just a web server.

The packages in Red Hat Linux were renamed following this.  Prior to
httpd 2.0 there were a number of inconsistencies in the rpms: the
package was called "apache", the modules lived in /var/log/apache and
the logrotate script was /etc/logrotate.d/apache, but the binary was
/usr/sbin/httpd, the configuration in /etc/httpd, the logs in
/var/log/httpd and the script to start it /etc/rc.d/init.d/httpd.  We
wanted to standardize on one or the other, and since upstream didn't
like "apache" we settled on "httpd".  It was purely a technical
decision.

Which is my very long winded way of saying I don't think using
"apache" in package names is a problem.

Cheers,
Gary

[Mat Booth]

2010/1/14 Gary Benson :
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > crossposting to java and packaging -
> > >
> > > Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from
> > > apache.org
> >
> > Sorry for the old followup, but I vaguely recall there been some old
> > badness about using the name "apache" (ie, notice the package named
> > 'httpd' in the distro).  I wonder if this is still a problem?
>
> As I remember it, the Apache Software Foundation renamed their package
> from "apache" to "httpd".  They wanted to stress that "Apache" was the
> software foundation, and that the software foundation was more than
> just a web server.
>
> Which is my very long winded way of saying I don't think using
> "apache" in package names is a problem.

In all honesty, I'm only really concerned with removing references to
the deprecated "jakarta" name.

Moving the Apache Foundation commons packages to an "apache-commons-*"
namespace makes sense, because there are other commons packages
unrelated to Apache project, such as Mary's "aduna-commons-*"
packages, but I don't see the need to rename other standalone Apache
Foundation projects if there's no naming conflict.