Re: How about some uniformity in doc names
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> On 11 Oct 1999, David Coe wrote:
> > Johnie Ingram <johnie@netgod.net> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
Of course, there is redundancy here.
How about this radical proposal:
Package names henceforth will only be unique within sections.
Then we have lib/z, lib/xpm, lib/Imlib. And doc/xpm, doc/gcc, devel/gcc.
It becomes a problem if we have both a library and a program called 'z',
of course (they couldn't both have documentation).
I haven't thought that through at all, I'm afraid, but we definitely do
have some impending namespace problems.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: