I'm referring to the official naming
policy to make this rename request and this isn't the result of a
personal preference. So far, the rule saying the package name needs
to match the upstream tarball is still not mentioned anywhere, and is
totally absurd to me, for the several following reasons:
1)
The package name needs to reflect the project, not its tarball
name.
As you said in the rename request ticket, using
upper-case or lower-case originate from an individual's history, so
the author in this case probably has used upper-case to ship his
tarball because he's mainly a Windows user. However, Linux users tend
to use lower-case naming. We should also keep in mind there isn't
always a single "word" to call a project. People need to
make the difference between canonical, formal and complete name, and
the name chosen for the tarball isn't always the best for a package
name. For example, we could have named our tarball the several way, and we can still do it:
- sfml-2.0.tar.gz
-
SFML-2.0.tar.gz
- sf-2.0.tar.gz
-
simple_and_fast_multimedia_library-2.0.tar.gz
-
Simple-and-Fast-Multimedia-Library-2.0.tar.gz
I'm sure we can
find a lot of ambiguous cases.
2) This invalidates the
upstream's prefrence rule.
3) Many authors include a suffix or
prefix to the project name to give a hint about what language this
library is for. Reusing this suffix or prefix is silly, unless this does
make the difference. I'm the author of pySFML and although I use the
word "pySFML" to name my project and to refer to the
binding for SFML, I ship my tarball under
python-sfml-x.y.z.targ.gz.
4) You'd no longer have control on
the package name.
5) What about tarball using fancy characters
?
Even if it's out-of-the-subject, I recall that allowing
upper-case in a package distribution context wasn't a good idea. I'm
probably not the only one to be pissed off to remember the packages
cases and it wouldn't serve any other purpose than differentiating
two packages by their cases but won't happen since this is also a bad
idea.
To conclude, I would say we can still rename our tarball
from SFML to sfml but I consider it's Fedora's job to pull our
tarball and make it fit its policy, not the other way round.
Send packaging mailing list submissions to
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
packaging-request@lists.fedoraproject.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
packaging-owner@lists.fedoraproject.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of packaging digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Package naming guidelines (Michael Schwendt)
2. Re: Package naming guidelines (Ralf Corsepius)
3. Re: Package naming guidelines (Michael Schwendt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:13:23 +0200
From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com>
To: <packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines
Message-ID: <20130816191323.09aee25e@faldor.intranet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would appreciate
comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679
-> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14
> Ralf Corsepius 2013-08-16 11:56:46 EDT
>
> You are forcing me to do something I've never done in Fedora before:
>
> (With my FPC-member hat on) This rename request violates the FPG,
> because the upstream zip-ball is called SFML,
> ...
> Source0: http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/sfml/%{version}/SFML-%{version}-sources.zip
> ...
> It therefore MUST NOT be ACCEPTED.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:44:50 +0200
From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>
To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora
<packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines
Message-ID: <520EE3A2.9090007@freenet.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 08/16/2013 07:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would appreciate
> comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679
> -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14
Executive summary:
In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 the package maintainer of SFML
requests the SFML package to be renamed from SFML to sfml.
I told him this would violated the FPG, because packages are supposed to
be named to after the tarball. However he continues to insist on this
renamer and sent comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 in
response to make unmisunderstandibly clear that he leave me no choice
but to reject his package rename request.
>> Ralf Corsepius 2013-08-16 11:56:46 EDT
>>
>> You are forcing me to do something I've never done in Fedora before:
>>
>> (With my FPC-member hat on) This rename request violates the FPG,
>> because the upstream zip-ball is called SFML,
>> ...
>> Source0: http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/sfml/%{version}/SFML-%{version}-sources.zip
>> ...
>> It therefore MUST NOT be ACCEPTED.
> --
Ralf
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:13:06 +0200
From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com>
To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora
<packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package naming guidelines
Message-ID: <20130817101306.7ab58a98@faldor.intranet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:44:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 07:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Bad timing as weekend has arrived for many, but please, I would appreciate
> > comments on this one *and* the earlier feedback in the ticket:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679
> > -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14
>
> Executive summary:
>
> In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679 the package maintainer of SFML
> requests the SFML package to be renamed from SFML to sfml.
>
> I told him this would violated the FPG, because packages are supposed to
> be named to after the tarball. However he continues to insist on this
> renamer and sent comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/997679#c14 in
> response to make unmisunderstandibly clear that he leave me no choice
> but to reject his package rename request.
A few more details (the ticket comments aren't many, though):
* In a previous Package Review request (bug 652085), it has been
lower-case naming (sfml.spec and src.rpm). Different submitter and different
reviewer as with the upper-case SFML package submission, but with no mention
of the lower-case packages in other dists, and with no discussion of the
naming guidelines.
* One of the several bindings has been packaged in Fedora using lower-case
naming and with a lower-case "-sfml" in its subpackage name, too. Same
submitter as with the lower-case "sfml", but even another different reviewer.
* Several of the bindings (there's the plan to package more of them) use
a variety of mixed-case names, some all upper-case, others all lower-case.
Especially with regard to Fedora's %{parent}-%{child} naming guidelines
for add-on packages, it would get difficult and confusing to name the
package family properly. ( http://www.sfml-dev.org/download/bindings.php )
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity
|
| [...] Keep in mind to respect the wishes of the upstream maintainers.
| However, if they do not express any preference of case, you should
| default to lowercase naming.
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
|
| If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers
| in the past, then you should try to match their name for consistency.
------------------------------
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
End of packaging Digest, Vol 102, Issue 15
******************************************