On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4 August 2010 03:55, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 03.08.2010 23:21, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> this may be a minor issue, but it's bugging me so much that i had to >>> write it here. and please link me to any previous discussion if this >>> was asked before, i was kinda lazy to really search and >>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards didn't >>> mention anything about it. >>> >>> is there any rule on how to name packages ? >>> >>> lets take clutter as an example. it's named "clutter" everywhere in >>> upstream, git, tarball, docs etc. but, it only builds libraries, and >>> names those libclutter* (and really is only usable as library) >>> >>> so why are these (or only this?) packages named foo and not libfoo ? >>> >>> cheers >>> .andre >>> >>> ps. im here to fix, not flame :) >>> >> >> Arch, unlike other distros, names packages after what upstream names >> their software. Thus, clutter is named clutter because upstream calls it >> that. libinfinity is named libinfinity because upstream calls it that. >> >> Prepending "lib" to everything also seems silly to me. Some lib packages >> might not purely be libs. For instance, one of my packages, ogre, is >> mainly a lib for 3D development but it has a lot of stuff (media, docs, >> samples, tutorials) that regular libs do not. What should it be called >> in the "lib" scheme? libogre (Debian does that) or just ogre? sdkogre >> perhaps? If we just name it ogre, we will have no problems at all and >> people will easily be able to find the package they are searching by >> just following the name upstream gave to their stuff. >> >> This also goes hand in hand with the philosophy of living close to upstream. > > My suggestion in order of priority: > > - Upstream project name * > - Upstream tarball name > > * For some libraries, their project name is just "foo". In that case, > if I see that the resulting package would contain nothing the end-user > would run/use (as a binary/executable), then I name it "libfoo" (often > the tarball name). > > You can always approach upstream with regards to naming a distributed > package of their software. roger. thought it would be upstream business, just wanted to confirm.
