Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MT" == Michael Thomas <wart@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
MT> Following the precedent set by perl, python, and ruby, I've
MT> drafted a set of proposed guidelines for Tcl packages.
MT> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MichaelThomas/Tcl
After a couple of reads I'll say that to me these seem mostly sane and
it seems you've done a lot of work, but I know FA about Tcl so I
really can't really comment on many of the issues.
I'm concerned about how disruptive these are. If every package is
going to need to be changed then we really need comments from as many
people as possible who are involved with tcl packaging.
Hence my post to fedora-maintainers.
One concern I do have is the naming guidelines; why not adopt a "tcl-"
prefix universally, at least for new packages?
I waffled back and forth on this a few times. Most Tcl packages already
have a 'tcl' prefix (not 'tcl-') upstream, which seemed good enough.
For those that don't have the 'tcl' prefix, users and Tcl developers
won't be expecting such naming if they are trying to install the
packages manually, especially when the names are well-entrenched in the
Tcl community already. For example, 'tcl-bwidget' is a very
non-intuitive way to ask for the bwidget extension if I'm getting ready
to develop a new Tcl app.
Maybe a compromise would be to require the package name change, and
accept both the 'tcl' and 'tcl-' prefixes (less disruptive). But
packages are allowed to 'Provide: foo' for the more common name. Example:
Name: bwidget
becomes
Name: tcl-bwidget
Provides: bwidget
?
--Wart
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
