[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Java Policy and JVM languages family package names



On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 15:56 -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> Some days ago I noticed a new package queued at NEW named
> libtools-macro-clojure[1] and that reminded me about how I don't
> remember about any discussion or some formal document with a
> description about how library packages of JVM languages like Scala,
> Clojure, Groovy and others should be named.


> Anyway, maybe this is just a silly question but I only wanted to know
> if this topic has been discussed before or if you consider worthy to
> have a discussion about this topic.

Daigo (Clojure maintainer) and I discussed the naming scheme we would use for
Clojure libraries in Debian. I can not recall all variations we considered,
but a number pop into my mind right now, among them:

    * libfoo-clojure
    * clojure-foo
    * foo-clojure
    * clj-foo

Among these /I/ (still) prefer clojure-foo and clj-foo, but we decided to
follow the pkg-java naming conventions as we packaged Clojure libraries for
that team.

There are not many Clojure libraries and I still prefer a $LANG-$LIBRARY naming
scheme as is used by, for example the Python team. But then there are
numerous examples of the lib$LIBRARY-$LANG scheme in the archive (e.g. -perl)
to consider it an established one. If you (or anybody else) deems it important
to use a consistent scheme for all JVM languages then we could (and should
/now/) decide to do so and rename the few packages accordingly.

> I maintain GPars package and I named it libgpars-groovy-java but I
> always thought this package name is not quite right.

This naming scheme (i.e. lib$LIBRRARY-$LANG-java) looks indeed quite strange
and I would have never considered it for Clojure libraries. First and foremost
because Clojure does not only run on the JVM (there are CLR and Python
implementations), but also because it is not really related to Java (but the
JVM at best). All these languages are languages in their own right and just
happen to be implemented on the JVM now and we should take that into account
when naming packages.
-- 
Wolodja <debian@babilen5.org>

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: