Request Normalize-Audio

[SamK]

As mentioned in reply #9 http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,13382.msg74384.html
   

[SamK]

Refreshing this request in the hope it might be more attractive to package as SCM now.

[Jason W]

I see the deps for it are ones that I already have build scripts for.  I will aim for it in the near future.

[Jason W]

normalize.scm uploaded.  Please test and report any bugs.

[SamK]

normalize.scm uploaded.  Please test and report any bugs.

Got it - thanks.  Will test and report as requested.

[SamK]

Will test and report as requested.

There is a naming issue.

Code: [Select]

which mc ; which lame ; which sox ; which normalize ; which normalize-audio
/apps/bin/mc
/apps/bin/lame
/apps/bin/sox
/apps/bin/normalize

The SCM package has been created with the name and executable as, normalize.  This differs from the TCZ and Debian versions which both adopt, normalize-audio.

To maintain consistency with the others, and inter-operability of scripts, it will be preferrable for the SCM package and executable to also be normalize-audio.

[Jason W]

Slackware, Arch, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Lunar, Crux, Gentoo, and LFS use the name normalize for this package, and we also almost always stay with the name the upstream authors chose.  As well as normally leaving the executable name alone, except for when we add a version number to one so it will not conflict with another package, like gqview1 or gqview2.  Most of the TC repo is that way.  And the SCM repo is independent from the TCZ one anyway, there are differently named packages in it depending on the package's features.  This allows room for more than one version of a package, like xine-xvesa-i486 and xine-xvesa-i686. 

I guess the larger question is to we want to impose the Debian naming convention on the repos here that are built from source.  And do we want the SCM area to have to have the same package names as the TCZ one for those packages in the TCZ area that follow either Debian or another naming convention besides what the upstream author chose.  We do have the import tool making use of Debian packages, and I am not against Debian in any way.  But I think as for our own source built repo most folks would prefer the freedom to use the upstream package names or other names like we always have done in the past.

I will think more on it, and I would like to hear what others say on this subject.

[curaga]

If Debian doesn't respect the upstream name, then any scripts written against Debian's name are broken, really.

My opinion is that it's better to follow upstream.

[tinypoodle]

Here's a quick test from an account on a FreeBSD server which upon commands not found in path would suggest packages to install in home:

Code: [Select]

$ normalize-audio
sh: normalize-audio: not found
$ normalize

normalize is not installed, but is available in the following package(s):

Package:        dna-qc
Description:    A quality control algorithm for DNA sequencing projects

Package:        normalize
Description:    A tool for adjusting the volume of wave/MP3 files to a standard level

Use the following command to install a package in your home directory:

installhome <package>

Died at /usr/local/packages/bin/normalize line 18.
$

[SamK]

If Debian doesn't respect the upstream name, then any scripts written against Debian's name are broken, really.

My opinion is that it's better to follow upstream.

The natural extrapolation of this is that as the TCZ doesn't respect the upstream name, then scripts written against the current TinyCore offering are also broken.

It will be incongruous to have TC offer essentially the same application (albeit from a different repo) under different names.



Edit:
I have sent a PM to the TCZ maintainer inviting an opinion.

[curaga]

True, but so far I don't think we have many renamed binaries. In fact the opposite, base binaries have been renamed to prevent conflicts with external ones (ab).

edit: I see the TCZ version has it changed, curious.

[SamK]

edit: I see the TCZ version has it changed, curious.

Perhaps the difference wasn't described clearly enough in reply #5 above.  To help clarify it:

TCZ and Debian

• Extension/package name=normalize-audio
• Executable name=normalize-audio

SCM

• Extension/package name=normalize
• Executable name=normalize

[Jason W]

I remember reading in the Debian mailing list on the normalize issue, and what was brought up was that someone thought that the name normalize was too generic.  All I can find that would conflict with the normalize binary is the dna-qc package, an app from 1993 which is only available for FreeBSD.  In my opinion, that is a very obscure app, and if it was in Debian then perhaps it should have been the one to have it's binary renamed.

Those who use Debian/Ubuntu are going to expect normalize-audio, everyone else will be expecting normalize.  Are we going to rename firefox to iceweasel?  Or rename seamonkey to iceape?  Scripts that use those Debian browsers will also work no where else.

Like the other distros I mentioned earlier, I by far prefer to use the upstream package and binary name, preferably using lower case letters.   I definitely think we should at least be free to use the upstream name. 

[Jason W]

But I see your point about the scm and tcz repo using different naming conventions.  In this case, perhaps those packages that do not use the upstream package name should be encouraged to use the upstream package name that most distros use.  Mose distros use upstream names in all lower case, the lower case making it easy to remember and type out, and that is also my preference.

[gerald_clark]

Why not just add a symlink and forget it?