Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:16:14AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:33:37 -0400
> Elisamuel Resto <ryuji AT simplysam.us> wrote:
> 
> > On 4/11/2010 10:13 PM, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:59:23 -0300
> > > Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> libnet-perl == perl-libnet ??
> > >>
> > >> Shouldn't we have some kind of standard to avoid this?
> > > 
> > > We generally follow how upstream calls the project (usually via
> > > their tarball name). That and developer's doing a quick `gaze
> > > search` should avoid most duplicates.
> > > 
> > > -sandalle
> > 
> > I would prefer, personally, that language-specific spells would either
> > be prefixed with their language or at the very least, on the section
> > for the language. For example, we have xcache, but php-xcache would
> > make more sense as to what it is related to. Same with xdebug and a
> > the memcache pecl extension. Though in php's case, those would be
> > either php- or pecl-/pear- depending on their source.
> > 
> > Other distros follow prefixing perl stuff with perl-, which has saved
> > me trouble for searching packages for something I had forgotten.
> 
> That would probably be a good policy to follow...but do you mean for
> all non-GCC languages or do you want to start prefixing c++- (or cpp),
> c-, f95-, etc.? What about mono- or c#- or c-sharp-?
> 
> Perhaps only python/perl packages should have these prefixes? Ruby?

I would tend to disagree, why needlessly lengthen all the spell names?
Sticking to what upstream calls their package would be much more
convenient. We have sections and keywords to do grouping... If we need
better grouping we'd probably do better in developing keywords more.

Remko.

Attachment: pgpDK8Mid4dhU.pgp
Description: PGP signature