Hi there! On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:58:20 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steffen Möller wrote: >> Except that snplink is taken by another program > > This is a valid point and should probably be discussed with plink > (and snplink??) authors.
FWIW both software have been published in scientific papers, thus changing one name or the other can be more difficult. However, while Steffen's point is valid, it's not problematic ATM, since we don't have the "other" snplink [1] in Debian yet. >> With an increasing number of applications in >> Debian I am certain that b) or c) will be needed sooner or later, > > I do not think so. IMHO the Debian maintainer has the duty to teach > upstream about problems. [...] > So the user might face problems we just detected in Debian and could > have solved by informing upstream that there is a name space polution > in the Free Software name space which really should be avoided. Fully ACK, something like "population-link" or "wgaplink" [2] would have been clearly better [3]. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/13/3060 [2] the title of the paper being "PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis" http://pngu.mgh.harvard.edu/~purcell/plink/contact.shtml#cite [3] yes, I know it's sound worse than "plink", but it's at least an acronym of the title of the paper
pgpmoZRLSVK7V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
