Don Armstrong escreveu isso aí: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > I normally advocate using upstream name for source package name > > (even if it's a single binary package and the binary package would > > have a different name due to $LANGUAGE policy). > > If you are only building one binary package, the source package should > have the same name. The exception to this guideline is when the binary > package name is expected to change over the lifetime of the source > package. [For example, if the binary name contains a soname.] > > Otherwise you can end up with confusing cases where a package with > source foo builds binary bar, and binary foo is built by source bar. > > The language guidelines for binary packages exist to avoid cluttering > the package namespace, and they should generally be applied to source > packages too. Another argument in favor of using the same name for source and binary packages: suppose there is "libfoo", and independent bindings for Perl, Python and Ruby, all called "foo", and that "foo" is unique in their respective upstream language-specific namespaces (CPAN/PyPi/Rubygems); which one gets to use the 'foo' source package name in Debian? First come first serve won't work. BTW DEP-5 proposes a explicit field in debian/copyrigh for the upstream name of packages, so machine discovery of this information should not be too hard. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature