[Fwd: Naming problem for the "Falcon Programming Language" in Ubuntu.]
sh at sourcecode.de
Mon Jan 14 16:12:15 GMT 2008
On Mo, 2008-01-14 at 14:56 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:52:43AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > That's why I always tell upstream authors to never package their own
> > software, because they are not objective.
> I think this is silly. The more familiar the maintainer is with upstream
> the better, IMO. They need to realise that there are different
> responsibilities and goals involved, but otherwise, I'd love to have
> more upstreams maintain their own packages in Ubuntu.
Well, most of the time it's not. I saw many packages made by upstream
authors, who are not running the distro they made the package for. They
didn't have any knowledge about the system, and broke more then wanted.
> > Well, I don't know your project, neither do I know the other falcon
> > project. Having not a installation statistic available, it's quite
> > useless to discuss this. Ubuntu != the OSS universe..publish your
> > software, someone will package your project for redhat, suse,
> > ubuntu,debian etc. and then you will which porject is more known under
> > the name of "Falcon". The user will decide what they will use and the
> > package maintainer will decide what to do in case of name clashes and
> > how to package the two projects.
> I think it's perfectly alright for Giancarlo to spark (and take part in)
> the discussion here.
> Sorting this naming issue earlier rather than later is the better
> approach for everyone.
I never said, that it's not correct...but I don't think that it needs a
discussion on a level where upstreams have problems solving their naming
> > Neither the users of linux nor the package maintainers of linux can
> > deal with social problems regarding naming of software projects. And
> > yes, I know how developers feel, when someone took their name for a
> > different project...they feel illtreated, but as I said in the very
> > beginning, this is not an ubuntu or motu problem, it's a problem
> > between you and dennis and the two "falcon" project.
> I'm confused. You keep saying that Giancarlo should not deal with
> packaging at all, but leave it to something else, but still you want him
> and Dennis to have the discussion so that we don't have to?
Yes. Dennis and Giancarlo are both upstream developer for their
projects, they need to come to a solution. Not the distributors.
If both projects still claim /usr/bin/falcon, it's quite ok for me, and
the distributor has to deal with the problems occuring because of name
> It's perfectly possible for Giancarlo and Dennis to not give a hoot
> about each other's projects. Dennis' Falcon is a python project and
> Dennis is a python programmer, and Giancarlo doesn't (AFAIK) maintain a
> debian style repository using falcon, so they could just completely
> ignore each other (and their respective projects) and go on their merry
> way. What is their motivation to sort this out if not to help Ubuntu
> (and other distributions)?
Well, this discussion is (and that is my PoV) about what was first, the
hen or the egg. Both are developing software. Now, both were coming up
with the name "falcon". I don't get it, what is in for Ubuntu or for any
other distro to decide what naming way the two are going?
My opinion is, that the distributor shouldn't be involved in problems of
upstream decisions. If something doesn't match for the distro, the
package maintainer will solve this for their distro, this decision is
not made upstream then.
To come back to my first point, why upstream developers shouldn't
package their software for distros: Upstream developer don't think
objectively about their projects. All upstream developers want their way
injected into the distros, but sometimes this is not right way.
And to have this discussion here or e.g. on fedora-devel is not
important for the upstream project.
SysAdmin, OSS Developer
GPG-Key ID: 0xC098EFA8
Fingerprint: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8
More information about the Ubuntu-motu