Armin K. wrote: > On 07/14/2013 07:20 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> Author: krejzi >>> Date: Sun Jul 14 09:26:00 2013 >>> New Revision: 11411 >>> >>> Log: >>> this looks ugly. >>> >>> Modified: >>> trunk/BOOK/introduction/welcome/changelog.xml >> >>> - <para>[bdubbs] - Update to boost_1_54_0.</para> >>> + <para>[bdubbs] - Update to boost-1.54.0.</para> >> >> It may look ugly, but upstream names the package with underscores. Yes, >> I agree that it's a poor naming scheme.
> I'd appreciate if we use naming and versioning as in the book, not the > upstream tarball one. I'm afraid that I don't agree. The names in the book should reflect the tarball names when using a version. There are many deviations though that I really don't like. For instance, we use 'ISO Codes-3.44' when the tarball name is 'iso-codes-3.44'. Sometimes we capitalize the names we use (e.g. Apr-1.4.8, Aspell-0.60.6.1, etc) and sometimes we don't (e.g. libassuan-2.1.1, libatasmart-0.19, etc). My desired rule of thumb is to use the tarball name as defined by the package maintainer. I realize that this creates a problem when using the name at the start of a sentence where the normal rule is to capitalize or when using the tarball name as a proper name that is also usually capitalized, however I think we should be consistent everywhere we use the tarball name. I don't have a problem with using, for example, Aspell, by itself, but the tarball name is aspell-0.60.6.1. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
