Comment 12 for bug 1927004

I think you might be too focused on this particular package, as I'm not seeing any 'myriad' of use cases; the breakdown is:
1) a 'common' binary deb that provides something that other binary debs use
2) a 'maintained' or 'stable' binary deb that provides stuff that is 'maintained' and/or 'works mostly well'
3) a 'unmaintained' or 'unstable' binary deb that provides stuff that is 'not maintained' and/or 'doesnt work all the time'

The specific adjectives may vary, but I think that's the pattern here and I don't think this package (or the resource-agents package) is unique in having that kind of split.

All I'm saying is that if more than a couple packages in Ubuntu break down (some of) their binary debs in this kind of way, it would be good to have consistency in the naming of the packages by having a distro-wide discussion (however short that discusssion might be) and then documenting the guidelines in some appropriate place.

Otherwise, this will just get repeated for every package that gets split up in the same manner. The Ubuntu community might have some helpful input into this if we give them the chance to voice an opinion by starting a discussion on ubuntu-devel-discuss, instead of just deciding in-house.

In any case, I do think that discussing the naming in this MIR bug any further would absolutely be bikeshedding, so I recommend we don't continue here. This remains an ACK from the MIR team, as the naming was never a blocker for MIR.