4 ms·

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

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"

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"