Hello @sbrun, thank you for reporting this issue and welcome to drive!

In response to your request: I don't think this is an issue because the project has been around for the last two years (however 7 months with my fork) without conflicting with other projects.
A volunteer who packages drive for ArchLinux and Ubuntu (@shaggytwodope) has been able to do this for the last 7 months also without any conflict. Please take a look at https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/blob/master/platform_packages.md and https://github.com/shaggytwodope/drivedebpackage.
Also the publicity of the project is tied to the name drive and even the references already made to it.
Unfortunately, I feel like it is already too late to make a project name change that I personally don't see a reason to.

Please let me know what you think.
Thanks.

Hello,

Thanks for your answer.
There is no conflict for now but it's really generic so I can't tell in
the future. I understand it's quite difficult to change a name after two
years.
There were similar cases in the past in debian and quite often they
preferred to rename the package and the script.
Very generic names are best left for the user (custom scripts, shell
aliases, etc)
I'm not sure that the package will be accepted under the name drive.

Le 04/07/2015 11:21, Emmanuel Odeke a écrit :

Hello @sbrun https://github.com/sbrun, thank you for reporting this
issue and welcome to drive!

In response to your request: I don't think this is an issue because the
project has been around for the last two years (however 7 months with my
fork) without conflicting with other projects.
A volunteer who packages drive for ArchLinux and Ubuntu (@shaggytwodope
https://github.com/shaggytwodope) has been able to do this for the
last 7 months also without any conflict. Please take a look at
https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/blob/master/platform_packages.md and
https://github.com/shaggytwodope/drivedebpackage.
Also the publicity of the project is tied to the name |drive| and even
the references already made to it.
Unfortunately, I feel like it is already too late to make a project name
change that I personally don't see a reason to.

Please let me know what you think.
Thanks.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#271 (comment).

@rhertzog fyi

FWIW, the corresponding request to add a package generated quite some discussion about the name. You can check it out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/07/threads.html#00023

We were going to rename the package to google-drive before integrating it in Debian anyway.

But we will stop pursuing this "Intent to package" as it is much more work than anticipated.

@odeke-em I think this should be closed as the topic is sorta moved on to issue #277

Thanks for the heads up @shaggytwodope. However, I think I'll let @sbrun make that decision on how to close it since her issue came first and spawned the entire Debian thread.

@odeke-em Given the discussion in the Debian thread, if I have to sponsor someone to add drive to Debian I would ask him to rename the package and the binary to something less generic. Given that you did not seem to agree, we intended to pick a name ourselves: "google-drive".

Now it's up to you to see whether you want to rename your software or not. If not, close this ticket. If you need more time to think about it, leave it open.

@rhertzog gotcha. Am still hesitant on renaming it but feel free to rename it on the packaging end. Thing is the manifesto is to be able to add other backends in the future: ownCloud, s3, Dropbox, Azure etc and this is alluded to in the README. Switching the entire project's name to google-drive is putting the entire project in a box. It would be easier to spawn sub-projects e.g google-drive or s3-drive later on since all that will be required will be a sub directory.

Btw Go binaries get their name from the directory they are stored in, so it wouldn't require naming the entire project, just a sect of it and throwing in a directory. Let me push up a PR that will enable this and the issue should be resolved. I think the original issue title should have been change the binary name :)

Hello @odeke-em
I think it's better to keep this issue opened until you make your decision about the name.
Thanks

Reading the mailinglist over at debian I saw the idea of calling it odeke-drive. I kinda dig that... even tho @odeke-em is a terrible name (j/k mate :-p) go-drive could also be an idea for the debian pacakge. But I'am terrible with names, my first dog was named Doggy...

@shaggytwodope hahaha.
Hey y'all, please see PR #280 or get the latest from master.
Now you'll be able to say

$ go get -u github.com/odeke-em/drive/google-drive
$ # OR
$ go get -u github.com/odeke-em/drive/drive-gen && drive-gen google-drive # To bundle debug info

And now the binary should be google-drive.

Please let me know if that solves your problem.

Am off to bed for now, but I'll be back up shortly.

Ping in case anyone has any thoughts.

Just changed the alternate binary to drive-google to match the suffixing that had earlier been mentioned, and to avoid using the Google Drive trademark without their consent. Please get the latest from master.

Closing this issue since you can now generate a binary called drive-google. Thank you everyone for the thoughts and @sbrun for raising it.

Hi @odeke-em , sorry for reviving this topic, I run successfully the command:
go get -u github.com/odeke-em/drive/google-drive

But drive-google is not being recognized as a command. This still works for Debian?

Cheers!

@Vamoss check if your environment variables are set correctly, as mentioned in the install docs:
export GOPATH=$HOME/gopath
export PATH=$GOPATH:$GOPATH/bin:$PATH

Setting these fixed the issue for me.