On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?=<fedora-list at gunduz.org> writes: >>> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28 >>>> >>>> Should we have: >>>> postgresql-pgpool-II >>>> postgresql-orafce >>>> >>>> or just: >>>> pgpool-II >>>> orafce >>>> >>>> Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind >>>> of same namespace. >> >>> Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names >>> and they are just useless. >> >> FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to >> better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent >> for Devrim's position. >> >> regards, tom lane > >> It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the >> upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier? > > > If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as > postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian. > > OpenSuse and Mandriva don't seem to ship orafce. > > > Thinking of more general packages, e.g a java binding for postgresql, I would prefer names like postgresql-java (or similar) to be able to differentiate from mysql-java, ingres-java (given, those packages do exist). To be conformant to this naming scheme, other packages, that do only exist e.g. for postgresql, should IMHO be named postgresql-something. Even a search on packages gets you faster to results just by browsing package names (yes, I know yum is pretty smart and does not need that.) Cheers, Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
