Re: [SoftwareSuspend-devel] RFS: hibernate
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 12:53:14AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > - rename package to "hibernate-script" to keep it consistent with
> > upstream naming
>
> I'm not too sure about this. For one, it could (potentially) confuse
> people who are already using my unofficial packages. Also, the
> -script part of the name seems to not fit in very well with the name
> of other Debian packages.
>
> Bernard, since you wrote (and named) the script, do you have an
> opinion on this either way?
I'd probably prefer to leave the Debian package as just hibernate,
though I won't be offended either way. Paraphrasing an email I sent
when deciding the naming a while back:
"So we need to decide on a name for this thing for packaging
purposes - Kevin has proposed just 'hibernate', though I fear that
people will then expect this to do all the work :)
OTOH, it means a Debian package called hibernate will conform with
Debian policy having /etc/hibernate/hibernate.conf, and this
consistency with upstream is a good thing, IMHO. (Policy Manual
10.7.2 suggests "creating a subdirectory of /etc named after your
package").
An alternative name is hibernate-script - which while more
descriptive, means we'd be going against Debian policy if we wanted
/etc/hibernate ... D'oh :(
I think I'd like to call it hibernate-script still (the tarball),
and the rpm and deb packages can be called hibernate. (This is what
Kevin's rpm .spec does)."
> Also, if it's going into the Debian
> archive soon, do you want to commit the mawk fixes and release 0.99?
> (There are a few bug fixes sitting in svn at the moment.)
The mawk bug doesn't have a fix yet except perhaps using perl
intead. I might just resort to that.
I'll release 0.99 sometime tomorrow then.
Bernard.
--
Bernard Blackham <bernard at blackham dot com dot au>
Reply to: