On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:42 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > ''' > > == Naming Conventions == > > > > It is common for Tcl applications and extensions to begin with a 'tcl' > > or 'tk' prefix in the upstream name. Fedora Tcl packages should follow > > this convention. If the upstream name does not contain the 'tcl' or > > 'tk' prefix, then it is only necessary to add one if the upstream name > > is inappropriately generic. For example, the 'thread' extension to Tcl > > is named 'thread' upstream, but is named 'tclthread' in Fedora. The > > upstream name for the 'bwidget' extension is uncommon enough that it > > does not need to contain the 'tcl' or 'tk' prefix in the Fedora package > > name. > > ''' > > > > * Other languages use $LANGUAGE-$MODULE naming. > > * All modules in perl, ruby, and php are using the $LANGUAGE- prefix, > > there has been talk of removing the python exception (ie: having > > python-pygpgme instead of pygpgme) as having all modules use > > $LANGUAGE-$MODULE makes it easier for endusers to find modules written > > for the language they are writing their program in. > > > > So I'd propose: > > * For modules, tcl-thread and tcl-bwidget. Possibly tcl-tk but someone > > with more experience with tcl/tk will have to tell me if that makes > > sense. > > I would consider Tk a special case, and that the guidelines should allow > for either the 'tcl' or 'tk' prefix to be used. > > Would you agree that if upstream uses a name prefixed by 'tcl' already, > that we don't need to change it to a 'tcl-' prefix? For example, we > currently have 'tclxml'. I argue that we don't need to change this to > 'tcl-xml', or 'tcl-tclxml', but could add an additional 'Provides: > tcl-xml' and/or 'Provides: tcl-tclxml' if necessary. > I'm going to waffle on that. In some ways I see it as redundant to write tcl-tclxml. OTOH, the recent discussion[1]_ regarding python-py[name] vs py[name] hinged around making it easy to guess the names of language bindings so tcl-tclxml would be the most consistent in this regard. Anyone else on the Packaging Committee have some thoughts? [1]_: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20070123 [09:13:59-09:24:47 AM] [10:12:18-10:25:13AM] -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
