rename 'bazaar' package to 'baz'

Please forward this to Debian, as maintaining a delta like a rename is more than a bit unpleasant.

(Figuring this rename is for clarity to avoid confusion with bzr)

would it be possible to change the description of the current (old) 'bazaar' package to distinguish it from bzr? ..something along the lines of:

This package is not to be confused with the currently-developed bazaar package manager which uses the package name 'bzr'.

..would probably be useful.

For clarity: I meant to ask for the above change (disambiguation message in the bazaar package referencing bzr) in order to prevent confusion in the mean time until the potential name change takes place.

That sounds good, except that Bazaar (bzr) is a version control
system, not a package manager.

Duh. That threw a little flag in my head while writing it, but I
blithely continued on with my writing.. <rolls eyes at self> Thanks for
the correction. :-)

On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 16:17 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> That sounds good, except that Bazaar (bzr) is a version control
> system, not a package manager.
>

This early stage of Hardy looks like a good time to do package renames in Ubuntu. I agree with the idea of doing it initially in Debian, but I want to do it at a time when it won't cause trouble syncing into Ubuntu, and I don't want to wait until Hardy+1.

What can we do to get this moving?

Is there any particular reason to keep baz at all?

The only reasons I know of are:

1- There may be some hardcore users, who wish to keep using baz even though it is orphaned by upstream. (Robert pointed (indirectly) to http://lists-archives.org/debian-devel/124715-bug-433143-itp-bzr-rebase-rebase-plugin-for-bazaar.html)

2- baz is needed to upgrade old archives to bzr using bzrtools, and very likely to upgrade them using other tools like tailor. So even if no one is still using baz, there may be people who will someday need it to retrieve historical data.

I'm happy to leave it up to the people doing the work whether these are a strong enough reason to keep baz around in a package named "baz". It has seemed to me like Debian has tended to package everything that might be useful to somewhere that's technically and legally possible.

today on irc, someone asked:

<kjcole> Hi. I'm looking at one of my systems that I'm keeping stable at Dapper. (Actually, my hosting company is.) In the repos I notice both bzr and bazaar. Which is more current?

Robert says the plan is that as a first step, "bazaar" will change to a virtual package that installs both bzr and baz, with a reasonable description.

Is it possible to have the first step ready for Hardy?
Considering it's going to be an LTS, it will reduce confusion to new users.

Package has been removed from the archive for Hardy