Re: slgdbm_1.6-2_i386.changes is NEW
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[Moving this discussion to debian-devel. The context is the recent upload
of the slgdbm package, which is the fisrt package in Debian to provide an
SLang2 module. Please, keep Cc: to email@example.com]
* G. Milde <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-09-27 08:19]:
On 26.09.05, Paul Boekholt wrote:
I should have brought this up sooner, but isn't slfoo too shortish
for a debian package name? The perl policy says:
naming convention for module Foo::Bar is libfoo-bar-perl.
The Python naming scheme seems to be python-foo.
I vote vor slang-foo. (Not only because I like python more than perl, but
because this way slang modules will appear close to slang in an alphabetical
listing (e.g. in aptitude or `ls /usr/share/doc/`).
There is no policy in Debian regarding packages which provide SLang2
modules. Maybe we should write a draft and put it in one of the slang2
packages? Alastair, what do you think?
My preference is for slang-foo, as it is more visible that it is
a slang-related, rather than a generic DSO; slang-gdbm is more
interesting to a slang developer than to a gdbm one, and this shows that.
It appears php and common lisp, follow the $lang-foo naming scheme,
with ruby going the perl direction.
I can write up a short policy specifying it and include it in the next copy
of slang2. Please CC: me on any relevant comments.