Re: Choosing a sensible name for a new package split from octave3.0
* Stéphane Glondu <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2008-09-13 11:19]:
> Clearly, -common and -data are clearly the most common general-purpose
> suffixes for architecture-independant packages. I would probably use
> -common in your case.
* Ben Finney <email@example.com> [2008-09-13 20:10]:
> Rafael Laboissiere <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > octave3.0-common (although, this package will not be "common" to several
> > other, only to octave3.0)
> This would be my preference. It's common across architectures, which
> is a sensible enough semantic fit.
* Raphael Geissert <email@example.com> [2008-09-13 17:21]:
> Why not just octave3.0-scripts? (note the missing 'm').
> It would make more sense than a -data or -common package to me as it really
> describes the content.
Thanks for your replies. I think we are leaning towards octave3.0-common.
This was also the suggestion of Thomas Weber in a thread in
pkg-octave-devel. Otherwise, octave3.0-scripts would be a good name if the
package contained only scripts, but this is not going to be the case.