Re: slgdbm_1.6-2_i386.changes is NEW

[Alastair McKinstry <mckinstry@computer.org>]

Rafael Laboissiere wrote:

> [Moving this discussion to debian-devel.  The context is the recent upload
> of the slgdbm package, which is the fisrt package in Debian to provide an
> SLang2 module.  Please, keep Cc: to pkg-jed-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org]
>
> * G. Milde <g.milde@web.de> [2005-09-27 08:19]:
>
>  
>
> > On 26.09.05, Paul Boekholt wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > I should have brought this up sooner, but isn't slfoo too shortish
> > > for a debian package name?  The perl policy says:
> > >      
> > ...
> >    
> >
> > > naming convention for module Foo::Bar is libfoo-bar-perl.
> > >
> > > The Python naming scheme seems to be python-foo.
> > >      
> > I vote vor slang-foo. (Not only because I like python more than perl, but
> > because this way slang modules will appear close to slang in an alphabetical
> > listing (e.g. in aptitude or `ls /usr/share/doc/`).
> >    
>
> There is no policy in Debian regarding packages which provide SLang2
> modules.  Maybe we should write a draft and put it in one of the slang2
> packages?  Alastair, what do you think?
>
>  
My preference is for slang-foo, as it is more visible that it is
a slang-related, rather than a generic DSO; slang-gdbm is more 
interesting to a slang developer than to a gdbm one, and this shows that.

It appears php and common lisp, follow the $lang-foo naming scheme,
with ruby going the perl direction.

I can write up a short policy specifying it and include it in the next copy
of slang2. Please CC: me on any relevant comments.

Regards
Alastair