Dag Wieers wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Anthony Green wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 05:58 -0500, Build System wrote:
beecrypt-4.1.2-1You called this sub-package beecrypt-java. I suggest renaming this to
----------------
* Sat Feb 05 2005 Jeff Johnson <jbj@xxxxxxx> 4.1.2-1
- upgrade to 4.1.2
- put java components in sub-package.
- check that /usr/lib64 is not used on alpha (#146583).
something like beecrypt-java-jni. It only contains the JNI C side of
the beecrypt java library. The library of java code for beecrypt is
widely known as "beecrypt-java" (google for beecrypt-java-2.0.0.zip).
beecrypt-java hasn't been packaged yet, but it will surely require this
beecrypt-java-jni.
I would suggest java-something as a standard name, just like python-something, perl-something and other subpackage policies.
As long as beecrypt-java is a subpkg, I prefer "beecrypt-java"
OTOH, if standalone package, I would prefer "java-beecrypt", like, say, "python-sqlite3"
today too.
My rationale is to try to optimize the primary key retrieve on package file names, so
that "similar" group together when eyeballing, say, "ls -al" lists.
All is in the eye of the beholder of course, ymmv, everyone's does.
And I think "beecrypt-java-jni" waiting for a java package to magically appear
is rather effete, and confuses rpm package names with file names unnecessarily.
And no matter what, popt as subpkg of rpm confuses everyone.
But that's just me.
73 de Jeff
