Re: package name conventions?
also sprach Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.17.2330 +0100]: > I'm finishing a package for PStreams (pstreams.sf.net), and the > name I gave at first for the package was "pstreams". But maybe the > correct name should be "libpstreams". I should note that I asked the question as part of the sponsoring, and... > libfactory++-dev - C++ template factory framework ... that this is my software, which I named libfactory because I did not know better. It's also just a set of headers, so more a toolkit than a library... but nomenclature is vague here... It would be interesting to get some comments on this. FWIW, I am now almost in favour of pstreams -- as Antonio originally called it -- as it's the product name after all. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package name conventions?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:37:16PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.17.2330 > +0100]: > > libfactory++-dev - C++ template factory framework > > ... that this is my software, which I named libfactory because I did > not know better. It's also just a set of headers, so more a toolkit > than a library... but nomenclature is vague here... The problem with a lib*-dev package is that people expect a lib* to go along with it, but on the other hand people don't expect a build-depends on a lib*. And, of course, nobody expects the spanish inquisition... > It would be interesting to get some comments on this. > > FWIW, I am now almost in favour of pstreams -- as Antonio originally > called it -- as it's the product name after all. From what I can see, the package wouldn't provide anything useful at runtime, which is the intent of lib* package (IMO), and a lib*-dev package is for providing build-time stuff for a lib* package, so straight up pstreams seems like a winner to me. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package name conventions?
On 20041118T094050+1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > From what I can see, the package wouldn't provide anything useful at > runtime, which is the intent of lib* package (IMO), and a lib*-dev package > is for providing build-time stuff for a lib* package, so straight up > pstreams seems like a winner to me. There are (or at least have been) -dev packages without a corresponding non-dev package; these are generally libraries where dynamic linking is not considered useful. (Even the policy describes this case.) IMO, the case of a template library is exactly analoguous, and therefore I'd go with a lib*-dev. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package name conventions?
also sprach Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.17.2330 +0100]: > I'm finishing a package for PStreams (pstreams.sf.net), and the > name I gave at first for the package was "pstreams". But maybe the > correct name should be "libpstreams". I should note that I asked the question as part of the sponsoring, and... > libfactory++-dev - C++ template factory framework ... that this is my software, which I named libfactory because I did not know better. It's also just a set of headers, so more a toolkit than a library... but nomenclature is vague here... It would be interesting to get some comments on this. FWIW, I am now almost in favour of pstreams -- as Antonio originally called it -- as it's the product name after all. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package name conventions?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:37:16PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.17.2330 > +0100]: > > libfactory++-dev - C++ template factory framework > > ... that this is my software, which I named libfactory because I did > not know better. It's also just a set of headers, so more a toolkit > than a library... but nomenclature is vague here... The problem with a lib*-dev package is that people expect a lib* to go along with it, but on the other hand people don't expect a build-depends on a lib*. And, of course, nobody expects the spanish inquisition... > It would be interesting to get some comments on this. > > FWIW, I am now almost in favour of pstreams -- as Antonio originally > called it -- as it's the product name after all. From what I can see, the package wouldn't provide anything useful at runtime, which is the intent of lib* package (IMO), and a lib*-dev package is for providing build-time stuff for a lib* package, so straight up pstreams seems like a winner to me. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package name conventions?
On 20041118T094050+1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > From what I can see, the package wouldn't provide anything useful at > runtime, which is the intent of lib* package (IMO), and a lib*-dev package > is for providing build-time stuff for a lib* package, so straight up > pstreams seems like a winner to me. There are (or at least have been) -dev packages without a corresponding non-dev package; these are generally libraries where dynamic linking is not considered useful. (Even the policy describes this case.) IMO, the case of a template library is exactly analoguous, and therefore I'd go with a lib*-dev. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
