Armin K. wrote: > How about packagename-packageversion then? I personally use packagename > packageversion (no dash between name and version) or even a modified > name (ie, GStreamer Ugly Plugins instead of gst-plugins-ugly). We could > change remainging packages that contain spaces in their titles and > xrefnames to the correct packagenames if necesary.
packagename-packageversion is the most common usage. I just went through the for the entire book doing the package currency scripts. There I had to use the upstream names and spelling. There are a lot of names that I don't like: LVM2-2.02.98 expect5.45 sysvinit-2.88dsf tcl8.6.0-src tzdata2013d iproute2-3.9.0 boost_1_54_0 I also don't like the version numbers like: shadow-4.1.5.1 Do we really need major.minor.micro.patch numbers? Three should be all that's needed. Some versions have just gone to a sequential number: kmod-14 systemd-205 But that's OK. If it were up to me, I'd change a lot of these names, but it is really up to the developers so it's not my call. For BLFS, we need to be consistent with upstream. That said, I don't want to make a special effort to change the book right now. Changing the entries as the packages are updated is OK with me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
