-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hello,
I would like to hear opinion of other packagers about naming. We have `parallel` utility implemented in Rust which is drop-in replacement for GNU parallel. I was thinking how to name package and how people would expect it to be named. So far options are:
* rust-parallel * parallel-rust * parallel-rs
I dislike first one because it is not ending up in completion while second and third are quite good.
Thoughts? - -- - -Igor Gnatenko
On 12/04/2017 10:20 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
I would like to hear opinion of other packagers about naming. We have `parallel` utility implemented in Rust which is drop-in replacement for GNU parallel.
This longs for an explanation - I do not comprehend, what you are trying to do?
Replacing (== obsoleting) one existing package with a *rust* package (cough ...) seems to be quite absurd and non-sensical to me.
I was thinking how to name package and how people would expect it to be named. So far options are:
- rust-parallel
- parallel-rust
- parallel-rs
I dislike first one because it is not ending up in completion while second and third are quite good.
I'd prefer rust-parallel, because this matches the conventions for other languages (python, perl, ...).
Ralf
Igor Gnatenko ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I would like to hear opinion of other packagers about naming. We have `parallel` utility implemented in Rust which is drop-in replacement for GNU parallel. I was thinking how to name package and how people would expect it to be named. So far options are:
- rust-parallel
- parallel-rust
- parallel-rs
Users of a program – as opposed to a library – don't normally need to know what language the program is written in, and programs packaged in Fedora – unlike libraries for some languages – don't normally have the language in the package name.
Is your package meant to be parallel-installable with the parallel package? If so, what is the program called, since /usr/bin/parallel is taken? Or is it meant to conflict with GNU Parallel?
Perhaps both the program and the package should have a name that has some connection to the purpose of the reimplementation? What would be the reason why a user would choose the Rust implementation over GNU Parallel? Is it meant to be faster? Even more parallel? Less buggy? Something else?
If the only reason is that the user hates Perl and wants to use programs written in Rust instead, then I guess it makes sense to have "rust" in the package name.
Björn Persson
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Björn Persson -
Igor Gnatenko -
Ralf Corsepius