On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 12:37 -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > > It's up to you how to name it. As for the rule of thumb, packages named > > after the binary they contain. So it should be gceph, but can be > > ceph-gui if you want. > > I'm inclined to rename gceph to ceph-gui, actually, unless anyone has any > strong opinions about it... Either is fine for me, should be gceph after the binary but I admit that ceph-gui is more suitable for its name. Still if I've a voting right, I'd say ceph-gui suggests it's only a GUI for the CLI binary (needs ceph, just calls ceph with it's switches in the background). It's not the case, it's a standalone binary, a graphical ceph -> gceph. Of course the choice is yours. > > The question is, when do you want to merge these changes to rc? There > > are unstable and gceph trees available, but are they for v0.24 or not? > > The binary is standalone. They should just recommend each other, I think. > And this is all in the unstable branch (for v0.25), so we can just change > it there. OK, will do tomorrow if you decide on how to name its package. Offtopic: What's your timezone? I'm UTC/GMT +1. Laszlo/GCS -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
