On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:58 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:38 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > > A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the LADSPA > > > plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just > > > <plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times. > > > > Hmmm, is that a real rule for Fedora packages? > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/repoview/swh-plugins-0-0.4.14-6.fc5.html > > No, it's not a rule. Every once in a while there are package name rule > discussions (my personal "favorite" is perennial java-FOO discussion), > but, AFAIK, there have never been rules for plugins, etc. > > When I added swh-plugins to Extras, I just used the name from CCRMA. If > I were to do it from scratch, I think maybe I would have used > swh-ladspa, or something like that. But I don't think it matters > enough to change now. Ok... I'm not sure if it would be worth releasing the plugins I'm about to release for fc5 (in the Planet CCRMA world so far) with ladspa-whatever naming or not. Most probably not till there is some consensus (otherwise I may be forced to switch again to something else - would not be the first time something like that happened to me :-). [I already have something like this, I name the pd external packages pd-whatever] -- Fernando
