proper name for userspace package?
I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.
The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
Thanks,
-Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
(Cc added to Debian maintainer)
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.
The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
Thanks,
-Eric
I don't know the how and why. The btrfs was also packaged with the "-tools" convention in Debian. On the one hand, we can see all the convensions like "-utils", "-tools", and "progs" there.
Personally, I like the "-tools" convension for new ones.
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 10 lines · Ryusuke Konishi
(Cc added to Debian maintainer)
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
I'm wondering what the preferred name is for the userspace package.
The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
Thanks,
-Eric
Quoted 9 lines
I don't know the how and why. The btrfs was also packaged with the "-tools" convention in Debian. On the one hand, we can see all the convensions like "-utils", "-tools", and "progs" there.
Personally, I like the "-tools" convension for new ones.
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
Ok, thanks. If it was due to a debian convention, then I may wind up following the Fedora convention (if there is one ;)
-Eric
Quoted 2 lines · Ryusuke Konishi
Quoted 2 lines
The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
it's my own aim to get some sort of uniformity with package names in debian, so that we have $filesystem-tools for new packages. new means basically almost anything after e2fsutils.
actually, i should rename it from nilfs2-tools to nilfs-tools. unfortunately, in debian we have a quite stupid thing called NEW queue which make such a simple rename have a penalty of 4 to 8 weeks of waiting until ftp-masters unblock it. but i still might do that at some point (unless Ryusuke dislikes it ;).
for fedora/rh, if you don't have people with a quirk for uniformity, you might just want to go with the upstream name as it's the way of the least surprise for the user.
Regards,
Daniel
Signature · 3 lines
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [email protected] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Daniel Baumann
Quoted 2 lines · Ryusuke Konishi
Quoted 2 lines
The tarball is "nilfs-utils" but debian has "nilfs2-tools" - is there a preference, or is this a debian convention that caused the rename?
it's my own aim to get some sort of uniformity with package names in debian, so that we have $filesystem-tools for new packages. new means basically almost anything after e2fsutils.
Thanks. I felt this implicitly, and now I get it straight from you.
Quoted 5 lines
actually, i should rename it from nilfs2-tools to nilfs-tools. unfortunately, in debian we have a quite stupid thing called NEW queue which make such a simple rename have a penalty of 4 to 8 weeks of waiting until ftp-masters unblock it. but i still might do that at some point (unless Ryusuke dislikes it ;).
Well, I don't mind either. I'm accountable for part of the confusion especially for the version number ;)
"nilfs-tools" sounds simpler. Umm, actually it would be better in the long term because the nilfs package already has versions related to the filesystem version (e.g. -2.x.y). At least I don't have any reason to object to the rename.
I just realized that ocfs2-tools package has versions 1.x.y.
Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 4 lines · Ryusuke Konishi
"nilfs-tools" sounds simpler. Umm, actually it would be better in the long term because the nilfs package already has versions related to the filesystem version (e.g. -2.x.y). At least I don't have any reason to object to the rename.
ok, i think so too. i just renamed in debian (well, i've uploaded it.. it will not wait for 0 to \infty for ftp-masters re-approval in the NEW queue :/).
Quoted 1 line
I just realized that ocfs2-tools package has versions 1.x.y.
i heard, that ocfs2 is called ocfs2 because ocfs1 was oracle intern only. not sure if that's true though.
Signature · 3 lines
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [email protected] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 2 lines · Daniel Baumann
i heard, that ocfs2 is called ocfs2 because ocfs1 was oracle intern only. not sure if that's true though.
No, it's not. :-) OCFS2 is a POSIX compliant filesystem, OCFS isn't.
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs/
# Note: OCFS is not intended to be a POSIX compliant file system, there are no
# guarantees that timestamp updates or inode changes are similar in behaviour # as other filesystems on the same platform or especially on different # operating systems. Version 1 is specifically designed for Oracle Database # files, create, move, delete and backup. It is well possible that certain OS # commands will show different results, this is not considered a malfunction # inside ocfs. We try when possible and where possible to stick to standard # behaviour with error messages, e.g. ENOSPACE, etc. However, at the minimum, # what is required for Oracle to work properly is implemented, anything more # is not a guarantee.
Signature · 4 lines
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users