Re: How about some uniformity in doc names
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> > > Just noticed there are 113 packages using the 'foo-doc' convention,
> > > and 7 using 'foo-docs.' Does anyone else think it would be nice if
> > > everything was foo-doc?
> > >
> > > Policy doesn't cover this currently.
> >
> > While you're at it, I think policy should also provide guidance
> > about whether the foo-doc package belongs in the same Section as
> > foo, or belongs in the doc section.
>
> Maybe should the policy told about libraries, too?
> The common naming scheme is 'lib*', but there are 'xlib6g' and 'zlib1g'
> which broke this convention.
Perhaps these existed before that policy section was written? :)
But these aren't that good examples - they at least contain "lib" in the
name. There are quite a few which don't have it at all (though some are
fixed now), like newt, qt, slang, xpm, gmp and many others. However,
renaming the packages would be easy - but recompiling every other package
that depends on these, just for the sake of the name change, would be slow
and painful. Remember, we don't have versioned provides.
It's better to wait for new soname versions, and then rename the packages
accordingly, because at that point other programs need to be recompiled
anyway.
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Reply to: