5 ms·

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be con

by r1ch 5y ago

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be confused into thinking it's something officially supported and clog up official support channels with unrelated issues.

MrStonedOne 5y ago
Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Complaining about the problem isn't going to be productive, and until they publicize a way to convey you are a fork of the alpine project they will have this issue. Welcome to FOSS. xchat solved this with ychat.
- dralley 5y ago
  > Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. This entire post is about how there isn't a solution to that problem. It's a fundamentally flawed idea.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    The solution is to seperate the branding from the idea. There is no way for somebody to suggest in the name of their product that they are a downstream of alpine without using the word alpine. alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever
    - deadbunny 5y ago
      > alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever Why is it on the Alpine Devs to name a downstream project? Would you ask the Debian devs to name Ubuntu?
      - MrStonedOne 5y ago
        they are the ones who have an issue with alpine-glibc's name
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        It isn't even really a downstream project. This is like saying that third party Deb packages are downstream projects of Debian. They are just third-party packages you can install in Debian.
- undecisive 5y ago
  > Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Alpine is also free to _not_ provide a solution to the problem. Alpine is free to say "This is not an approved use of our name" As you point out, the way to convey that you are a fork is to change your name in a non-confusing way, and provide attribution to the original in your readme or licenses.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    This isn't a fork. I seriously wonder how many people here are commenting without having any clue as to what they are talking about. It is simply a package that you install with apk in Alpine.
    - undecisive 5y ago
      Thanks for your "clarification", however I don't think you've fully grokked the situation yourself. I think the thing that was referred to as a "fork" was the docker image, which uses the package you mention, and afaik is the primary way that people are receiving that package and believing it to be blessed by the Alpine gods. In the sense that the container is a distribution in its own right that deviates from the roadmap of the Alpine makers, it could be considered a fork of sorts. And given that the package naming is far less confusing than the dockerhub naming, I feel like that's what most people on HN are attributing the confusion to. Note that the article doesn't mention that it's the container that is the source of confusion until the very last section, where it points out what they want to rename. The package itself is called alpine-pkg-glibc and as the author of that package has pointed out, the reason it is called that is to follow alpine package naming conventions, and they have mentioned on this HN convo that they are completely open to changing that name if asked. But regarding the docker image, I'm well aware that this isn't technically a full fork; I was mirroring the language used on the parent poster - however, since your clarification does not do justice to the complexity of the situation either and implies that you have less clue about what you're talking about, maybe tone it down a bit. Especially since one possible solution to this situation is indeed for the frolvlad/alpine-glibc authors to produce a full fork of Alpine linux with glibc and call it something else (I wonder if Himilayan Linux is available?)
- hvs 5y ago
  The post has a section called "Alternatives to alpine-glibc"
sgerrand 5y ago
Maintainer of the Alpine package you referenced here. I'm not a "them". ;) I don't see where "Alpine" is used in the package name, unless you're referring to the source repository name. In case it isn't clear, `alpine-pkg-` is a prefix which denotes that the repository contains an Alpine Linux package manifest and configuration. There's nothing in the repo itself which states that this package is published and/or endorsed by Alpine Linux.
- gnud 5y ago
  I think they're talking about things like https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc or https://hub.docker.com/r/jeanblanchard/alpine-glibc https://hub.docker.com/r/jeanblanchard/alpine-glibc
  - sgerrand 5y ago
    Ah, thanks for the pointer. The blog post referenced the Alpine package I maintain but was obviously implicitly referencing those Docker images.
    - ariadneconill 5y ago
      Yes, there's several of them. The problem isn't your package, but the distribution of "alpine" images that integrate the package. Those images should describe themselves more appropriately.
stonemetal12 5y ago
It uses "glibc" in the name, should we assume it is an official glibc project? Perhaps by using both in the name we should assume it is an official announcement that glibc and alpine Linux have merged and are now one and the same thing! Or perhaps we should not be dumb and see that it doesn't come from the official channels of either. Therefore we should assume it is some random project that tries to use both, however poor an idea that maybe.

by r1ch 5y ago

MrStonedOne 5y ago

Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Complaining about the problem isn't going to be productive, and until they publicize a way to convey you are a fork of the alpine project they will have this issue. Welcome to FOSS. xchat solved this with ychat.

dralley 5y ago
> Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. This entire post is about how there isn't a solution to that problem. It's a fundamentally flawed idea.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  The solution is to seperate the branding from the idea. There is no way for somebody to suggest in the name of their product that they are a downstream of alpine without using the word alpine. alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever
  - deadbunny 5y ago
    > alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever Why is it on the Alpine Devs to name a downstream project? Would you ask the Debian devs to name Ubuntu?
    - MrStonedOne 5y ago
      they are the ones who have an issue with alpine-glibc's name
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      It isn't even really a downstream project. This is like saying that third party Deb packages are downstream projects of Debian. They are just third-party packages you can install in Debian.
undecisive 5y ago
> Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Alpine is also free to _not_ provide a solution to the problem. Alpine is free to say "This is not an approved use of our name" As you point out, the way to convey that you are a fork is to change your name in a non-confusing way, and provide attribution to the original in your readme or licenses.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  This isn't a fork. I seriously wonder how many people here are commenting without having any clue as to what they are talking about. It is simply a package that you install with apk in Alpine.
  - undecisive 5y ago
    Thanks for your "clarification", however I don't think you've fully grokked the situation yourself. I think the thing that was referred to as a "fork" was the docker image, which uses the package you mention, and afaik is the primary way that people are receiving that package and believing it to be blessed by the Alpine gods. In the sense that the container is a distribution in its own right that deviates from the roadmap of the Alpine makers, it could be considered a fork of sorts. And given that the package naming is far less confusing than the dockerhub naming, I feel like that's what most people on HN are attributing the confusion to. Note that the article doesn't mention that it's the container that is the source of confusion until the very last section, where it points out what they want to rename. The package itself is called alpine-pkg-glibc and as the author of that package has pointed out, the reason it is called that is to follow alpine package naming conventions, and they have mentioned on this HN convo that they are completely open to changing that name if asked. But regarding the docker image, I'm well aware that this isn't technically a full fork; I was mirroring the language used on the parent poster - however, since your clarification does not do justice to the complexity of the situation either and implies that you have less clue about what you're talking about, maybe tone it down a bit. Especially since one possible solution to this situation is indeed for the frolvlad/alpine-glibc authors to produce a full fork of Alpine linux with glibc and call it something else (I wonder if Himilayan Linux is available?)
hvs 5y ago
The post has a section called "Alternatives to alpine-glibc"

sgerrand 5y ago

Maintainer of the Alpine package you referenced here. I'm not a "them". ;) I don't see where "Alpine" is used in the package name, unless you're referring to the source repository name. In case it isn't clear, `alpine-pkg-` is a prefix which denotes that the repository contains an Alpine Linux package manifest and configuration. There's nothing in the repo itself which states that this package is published and/or endorsed by Alpine Linux.

gnud 5y ago
I think they're talking about things like https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc https://hub.docker.com/r/frolvlad/alpine-glibc or https://hub.docker.com/r/jeanblanchard/alpine-glibc https://hub.docker.com/r/jeanblanchard/alpine-glibc
- sgerrand 5y ago
  Ah, thanks for the pointer. The blog post referenced the Alpine package I maintain but was obviously implicitly referencing those Docker images.
  - ariadneconill 5y ago
    Yes, there's several of them. The problem isn't your package, but the distribution of "alpine" images that integrate the package. Those images should describe themselves more appropriately.

stonemetal12 5y ago

It uses "glibc" in the name, should we assume it is an official glibc project? Perhaps by using both in the name we should assume it is an official announcement that glibc and alpine Linux have merged and are now one and the same thing! Or perhaps we should not be dumb and see that it doesn't come from the official channels of either. Therefore we should assume it is some random project that tries to use both, however poor an idea that maybe.