[POLICY] Binary vs source package names

[luca@pca.it (Luca Capello)]

Hi all!

While trying to solve all the CL bugs [1], I noticed that we should
define a clear policy about package names WRT the cl- prefix.  This will
be then part of the Common Lisp packaging policy I dreamt of [2].

My proposal is that "libraries" should have the cl- prefix at least for
the binary package names, since this is very similar to the lib*
packages.  With "library" I mean all those software which is designed to
be used by other packages and not as a stand-alone program.  E.g.,
arnesi [3] or cl-irc [4].

However, binary package names for software which is intended as a
stand-alone program should not be prefixed by cl- if they don't already
have it.  Whenever is possible, the source package name should reflect
the upstream one, thus without the cl- prefix if upstream doesn't have
it.  This is indeed the case for most of the software in this group
(e.g. SBCL [5] or StumpWM [6]), but not for all (e.g. Hunchentoot [7]
binary package is called cl-hunchentoot in Debian).

If no one disagrees, I'll try to correct the packages I find starting