Bug#676163: confusing naming of the packages epiphany and epiphany-browser

[Ricardo Mones]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:05:33 +0200
Josselin Mouette <joss at debian.org> wrote:

> Le mardi 05 juin 2012 à 16:24 +0200, Ricardo Mones a écrit : 
> >   I don't know about that git precedent. 
> 
> There was an old package named git. Then a new one, more popular,
> originally named git-core.
> Now git is what people expect git to be on a Linux system. And epiphany
> is not.

  I remember now, thanks, but I see nothing in git renaming which resembles
  this case.

> > Anyway my opinion is simple, and all
> > the confussion comes by the changes made in epiphany-browser package to 
> > hijack the epiphany name, despite being already used by an existing
> > package.
> 
> No, the confusion comes from two upstream packages having the same name.

  Almost! So, given the important fact that one of them existed and was
  packaged before the other, which is the one which generates the confusion?
  Furthermore, why a few users of the new one pretend the already existing
  has a problem?
 
> > > This attitude is causing all sorts of bugs in epiphany since we have to
> > > rename it to “epiphany-browser” in many places. 
> > 
> >   Since I've done several of those reassignations I don't think that's
> > causing much trouble to you. How much are "all sort of bugs"? Because
> > you make it look like you were all day long renaming bugs from
> > epiphany... :-P 
> 
> Documentation pointing to a binary named epiphany, not epiphany-browser.
> Desktop files, documentation files, links, icons all failing to work
> randomly upon new upstream releases because they expect “epiphany” as
> name, not “epiphany-browser”.

  So those were caused by epiphany, not because the ones at packaging forget
  once and again how the package was named or failed to review upstream
  changes... fantastic!

> Other GNOME modules failing to find epiphany because it doesn’t have the
> right name.

  The right name is the one in the package you're using, and the packagers of
  the modules should have looked. I guess they did, because nobody reassigned
  those bugs to epiphany.

> Etc. 

  If it were really that so-miserable way you try to depict it, I wonder why
  no developer of epiphany-browser filed a bug on epiphany kindly requesting
  the renaming in all those years.

> > Sure, then maybe you have a reason to revert epiphany-bin to epiphany
> > rename [0] which later caused http://bugs.debian.org/216489, and
> > basically where all the confussion comes from.
> 
> Maybe you could explain your reasons to piss off users by not renaming
> your pet package with 0.55% popcon.

  I don't see any pissed off user, just a confused one. I have no problem
  with confused users, I can help them, and explain how things are. In fact
  the only one which seems pissed off here is you, which is a bit surprising
  given this is the first time you talk to us about this issue.

  I'm sorry you don't care about those 700 users who bothered to install
  epiphany, we do, and they also expect epiphany package to be called
  epiphany. I care even about the epiphany-browser users which don't read
  their screen and file bugs on the wrong package, I reassign them without
  problem and they seem to learn. But I still don't have reasons to rename
  the package, it works perfectly as it is now.

  As you seem to have read http://bugs.debian.org/393521 you probably know
  this, but instead you prefer to suggest the reporter to waste tech-ctte's
  time.

> > If you had choose renaming to epiphany-browser, all of this would be
> > fine: epiphany package would be providing epiphany binary and
> > epiphany-browser would be providing epiphany-browser.
> 
> This is exactly what we do, yet an epiphany binary is necessary for
> compatibility.

  Alright, anyway that's fixed long ago. 

> > But I guess it's more simple to say I'm the stubborn guy, thanks Josselin
> > by your great explanation of the situation.
> 
> Yes, it’s a shorter but quite equivalent explanation.

  No, just a hint that you concluded something wrong from reading a bug.

  Be happy,
-- 
 Ricardo Mones
 http://people.debian.org/~mones
 «You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.»
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20120606/06df95c4/attachment.pgp>