Comment 70 for bug 1273484

(In reply to Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo from comment #66)
> As a user maintaining several installations of Nagios and Icinga under RHEL,
> Fedora and CentOS; I agree with comment #29. I expect the nagios-plugins
> package to follow the current canonical upstream. If upstream decided to
> change name and URL, I expect any new package release to do the same thing.
> Whether the package name is changed or not, I would expect the new package
> to upgrade the already installed older version of the package.
> When the 'Netsaint' project decided to change its name to 'Nagios', we all
> expected any new releases to be named 'Nagios' and seamlessly upgrades the
> older 'Netsaint' package. In fact, today I can still see RPMs that does a
> 'Provides' to 'netsaint'.
> I don't see why it should be different this time.

Because that requires everyone moving to a specific project. Overall, I'm fine with letting users choose if they want to keep using the Nagios Enterprises version.

> The fact that there's another project using the old name left by the
> original project is entirely different matter. If it is decided to create
> package for 'the new project that is using the old name', the new package
> should be packaged under a new name and must not break the already existing
> packaging arrangement. I just wish 'the new project that is using the old
> name' does not make the packager's job harder than already it is.

Absolutely, that's clearly the best route forward in regards to package naming and it's the one I'm currently working on taking.

> ---
> (Off topic, but related)
> Furthermore, considering the situation, it is my opinion that Nagios should
> be superseded by one of the forks, although it is not clear which fork to
> go. I wish the forks are able to unify and cooperate more.
> The community had in the past several times decided to move from one project
> to another that fits better with community, for technical or other reasons.
> Example: GCC->EGCS->GCC, XFree86->Xorg,>Libreoffice, and
> recently MySQL->MariaDB. I think the current situation warrants some
> consideration about this.

I think you're right and ultimately the monitoring-plugins will get traction behind it (in my opinion) because it's a community project and has known and respected contributors working on it. In the meantime I want users to have the flexibility to make a choice.