Bug#198569: [ITP]: r-noncran-design -- Regression modeling strategies
On Jun 24, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:31:53PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > Package: wnpp
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > >
> > > * Package name : r-noncran-design
> > > Version : 1.1.6
> > > Upstream Author : Frank Harrell <fharrell@virginia.edu>
> > > * URL : http://hesweb1.med.virginia.edu/biostat/rms
> > > * License : GPL
> > > Description : Regression modeling strategies
> > >
> > > Design is one of two packages by Frank Harrell and requires the other, Hmisc.
> > > Design provides the code supporting Harrell's 2002 book on 'Regression
> > > Modeling Strategies'. I intend to stick with the convention of calling the
> > > (Debian) source package the same as the (source) R package -- design -- but
> > > then normalizing on r-noncran-design as done by prior packages maintained by
> > > Chris Lawrence and myself.
> > >
> > I think that 'design' is, also as a source package name, way too
> > generic. You can't in any way defer what this source package is
> > about... The same applies (but not as much) to hmisc, IMHO. Why not
> > name the source packages the same as the binary packages?
>
> a) Transparency, so 'name it the same as upstream'. CRAN packages have their
> own little conventions and infrastructure. IMHO we gain little by adding
> another layer of complexity.
>
> b) Precedence. We already have 7 or 8 R add-on packages. Several of
> these do the same thing. In fact, mine do -- whereas Chris
> Lawrence's don't. Doug Bates plans to release some too. Some
> uniformity would be good.
Well, to clarify, r-noncran-lindsey is a bit of a special case
(combining half a dozen upstream packages in a bundle), and the source
package name r-cran-coda was used because there's already a coda in
experimental. The source for r-cran-mcmcpack is simply mcmcpack; of
course, upstream is MCMCpack. My tendency (thought process) has been
to use upstream's name unless it's horribly generic or there's an
existing conflict.
I really don't think the source package name matters that much.
However, if there's a realistic chance of a conflict coming up with
something more generic, I'd prefix with r- or r-cran- or r-noncran-;
by that criterion, hmisc seems ok for Hmisc, but maybe r-design or
r-noncran-design would be better for Design's source.
(Hence my annoyance with some of the GNUstep packages that take
generic names like "terminal".)
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
Reply to: