Jakub Wilk escreveu isso aí: > * Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 2012-01-25, 10:12: > >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? > > None of them, of course. > > This is an argument for naming source packages in a sane way when > your upstream for some reasons could do that himself... Not much to > do with $binarypackagename==$sourcepackagename, really. What's sane for us is not what's sane for upstream. Having a unique name in PyPi is perfectly sane for Python developers, and they won't check every other language archive to make sure their package name doesn't clash with any other package in any other language. Debian, on the other hand, requires a globally unique name. Acting consistently and sticking to the per-language standards for naming packages, including source packages, is the Debian solution for guaranteeing a unique name. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature