[Paul Wise, 2012-02-17]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Please don't. There are developers (like me) who prefer source package
names to be as close as possible to upstream's name.
As a pedantic/info level warning, you are of course free to ignore it.
True. It
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:29:13PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Maybe the best we can do is to set good precedence for the next 100
programming languages to come. Looking at some examples I find:
* Haskell: Almost exclusively haskell-foo
* OCaml: A mix of ocaml-foo, ocamlfoo and
[Paul Wise, 2012-02-16]
How about a lintian complaint at info/pedantic level called
source-package-name-doesnt-match-binary-package that triggers on
single-binary source packages and where the binary name doesnt look
like a versioned library package?
Please don't. There are developers (like
* Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org, 2012-02-16, 12:59:
How about a lintian complaint at info/pedantic level called
source-package-name-doesnt-match-binary-package that triggers on
single-binary source packages and where the binary name doesnt look
like a versioned library package?
Please
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
Please don't. There are developers (like me) who prefer source package
names to be as close as possible to upstream's name.
As a pedantic/info level warning, you are of course free to ignore it.
--
bye,
pabs
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Charles Plessy wrote:
To follow the naming scheme of the Perl team, I have renamed one of
my binary packages ‘bioperl’ to ‘libbio-perl-perl’, but I doubt it
would be helpful to have such a name as a source package.
Perl common practice is to use the same source and binary
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 15.02.2012, 11:22 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
Let's try to agree on a brief policy on naming schemes. Perhaps Perl,
Python and Java maintainers can comment on whether it would make sense
to have a common one (drafted as a DEP ?).
with my Haskell Group hat on, although
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:50:57 AM Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Charles Plessy wrote:
To follow the naming scheme of the Perl team, I have renamed one of
my binary packages ‘bioperl’ to ‘libbio-perl-perl’, but I doubt it
would be helpful to have such a name as a source
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
While I agree that preserving namespace is an important goal, I
think it should be balanced against the goal of making packages
discoverable by users.
I agree; however, I think this is best accomplished by including the
upstream name in the package
How about a lintian complaint at info/pedantic level called
source-package-name-doesnt-match-binary-package that triggers on
single-binary source packages and where the binary name doesnt look
like a versioned library package?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Le Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:23:40PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2008/08/msg00055.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2008/01/msg00019.html
#505309
among others.
For sure there are discussions, but what we need is a summarized conclusion.
(The
11 matches
Mail list logo
