[Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch

[Luke Shumaker]

At Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:08 -0300,
André Silva wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> The topic is basically "should we add '-libre' and '-parabola' to a
> certain package name built by us on [libre], [libre-testing] and
> [libre-multilib] repos?"
> Some days ago lukeshu put a similar topic about it [0], but due which
> to some users don't like the current package naming, i've propose
> reopen it to decide a definitive way to solve the package naming for
> packages modified from Arch from a voting to follow the 3th point of
> our Social Contract [1].
> 
> [0]:
> https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2014-August/002290.html
> [1]: https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract
> 
> The following 4 suggestions have been offered:
> 
>  1) Add the -libre suffix to all packages that are modified from Arch
>     for freedom reasons (so not for rebranding reasons). (fauno)
> 
>     lukeshu: Why "except for rebranding"?
> 
>  2) Add the -libre suffix on packages for patched-source software.
>     (lukeshu)
> 
>     lukeshu: Because the name "${pkgbase}-libre" denotes that it is a
>     fork of "${pkgbase}" that is maintained by the Parabola project,
>     similar to Iceweasel being maintained by Debian, or Linux-libre by
>     GNU/the FSFLA.
> 
>  3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm)
> 
>     Because all packages on [libre] have implicitly been modified for
>     freedom.
> 
>  4) Use -libre for patched-source software, and -parabola
>     for packaging or configuration changes. (coadde)
> 
>     The "-libre" policy from #2, plus using another suffix to
>     differentiate between Arch's version and Parabola's version to
>     avoid confusion when migrating.

New proposal (based on input from mtjm and cer):

  5) a. Patch makepkg to make pkgrel more flexible (it is already more
        flexible in pacman/alpm).
     b. When forking a package for freedom reasons, name the fork with
        the '-libre' suffix (example: Linux-libre is a fork of Linux
        (though it is not maintained by us)).
     c. When forking a package for technical reasons, name the fork
        with the '-parabola' suffix (example: patching makepkg as
        mentioned above would be pacman-parabola).
     d. When repackaging a package (without modifying the packaged
        software), set its pkgrel="${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}"
        (which is enabled by the makepkg patch mentioned above).
     e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package
        specific to a kernel version), name it
        "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it
        pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}"
     f. The kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to.

Notes:
 - The patch for makepkg is trivial.  I've actually submitted upstream
   a patch for makepkg 5.0; it will only take my a couple of minutes
   to backport it to makepkg 4.1.
 - 'e.' is the part I am least comfortable with.  I actually arived at
   it just now.  Here's my
   justification:

     - It is not nescessary to note -libre/-parabola, as they are NOT
       specific to the linux-libre kernel; they should work just fine
       with any kernel with the same $_basekernel and $_kernelname.
     - I'd sorta like to add a kmod- prefix or some-such, but that'd
       be unnecessarily deviating from Arch.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker