Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
* Norbert Preining <firstname.lastname@example.org> [051128 11:20]:
> Dear all!
> Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
> bin-to-source mapping.
> texlive-documentation-source 57M
> Reasoning: The documenatation is actually in a specific language, so we use
> the respective language code.
> texlive-documentation-base texlive-base-doc
> texlive-documentation-bulgarian texlive-bg-doc
> texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
> texlive-documentation-dutch texlive-nl-doc
> texlive-documentation-english texlive-en-doc
> Best wishes
In , Thiemo Seufer asserts that "FWIW, Debian package names prefer
e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over foo-documentation-ukenglish." I completely
There is already precedent for using foo-doc-fr ordering of -doc-LANG:
aptitude-doc-XX, udo-doc-XX, mdnkit-doc-XX, otrs-doc-XX,
speechd-el-doc-cs (the -el- is emacs lisp, -cs is Czech),
speech-dispatcher-doc-cs, lifelines-doc-sv, samba-doc-ja.
I saw no examples of -XX-doc with XX a language.
The most notable exceptions to PKG-doc-XX were doc-linux-XX and
doc-debian-XX, but in these cases, you can consider 'doc-linux' and
'doc-debian' to be the package names, rather than "documentation for the
linux or debian package." And, the -XX still came after.
I think -doc-XX is more natural, and I don't see why in  Thiemo said
that it made pattern matching harder. In fact, I think it is easier to
find documentation for the foo package with foo-doc; then you can easily
see what languages are available. Suppose you speak German and are
looking for documentation for package foo. You search for foo-doc; it
lists several, but not foo-doc-de. However, it lists foo-doc-fr, and
you speak French as a second language. Weeding out foo-docutils with
the -doc-XX ordering is at least as easy as finding doc packages in all
languages with Thiemo's ordering.
I am not currently a texlive user, but as a Debian user, I would much
prefer the current precedent rather than your proposed -XX-doc.