On Jun 24, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:31:53PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > > Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > * Package name : r-noncran-design > > > Version : 1.1.6 > > > Upstream Author : Frank Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * URL : http://hesweb1.med.virginia.edu/biostat/rms > > > * License : GPL > > > Description : Regression modeling strategies > > > > > > Design is one of two packages by Frank Harrell and requires the other, > > > Hmisc. > > > Design provides the code supporting Harrell's 2002 book on 'Regression > > > Modeling Strategies'. I intend to stick with the convention of calling > > > the > > > (Debian) source package the same as the (source) R package -- design -- > > > but > > > then normalizing on r-noncran-design as done by prior packages maintained > > > by > > > Chris Lawrence and myself. > > > > > I think that 'design' is, also as a source package name, way too > > generic. You can't in any way defer what this source package is > > about... The same applies (but not as much) to hmisc, IMHO. Why not > > name the source packages the same as the binary packages? > > a) Transparency, so 'name it the same as upstream'. CRAN packages have their > own little conventions and infrastructure. IMHO we gain little by adding > another layer of complexity. > > b) Precedence. We already have 7 or 8 R add-on packages. Several of > these do the same thing. In fact, mine do -- whereas Chris > Lawrence's don't. Doug Bates plans to release some too. Some > uniformity would be good.
Well, to clarify, r-noncran-lindsey is a bit of a special case (combining half a dozen upstream packages in a bundle), and the source package name r-cran-coda was used because there's already a coda in experimental. The source for r-cran-mcmcpack is simply mcmcpack; of course, upstream is MCMCpack. My tendency (thought process) has been to use upstream's name unless it's horribly generic or there's an existing conflict. I really don't think the source package name matters that much. However, if there's a realistic chance of a conflict coming up with something more generic, I'd prefix with r- or r-cran- or r-noncran-; by that criterion, hmisc seems ok for Hmisc, but maybe r-design or r-noncran-design would be better for Design's source. (Hence my annoyance with some of the GNUstep packages that take generic names like "terminal".) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/