Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Elisamuel Resto <ryuji AT simplysam.us>]

On 4/13/2010 3:16 AM, 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?
> 
> -sandalle

Correct, non-gcc languages. Prefixing everything like that would be...
hectic. Well, if its a module or something for g++, why not name it
g++-modulename? thats it, the rest of the spells stay as such.

Does that kinda clear up what I referred to?