Re: Bug#484381: ITP: yaml -- YAML 1.1 parser and emitter written in C
I received this response from the upstream author regarding the package
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Kirill Simonov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: LibYAML tarball name
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:05:16 +0300
Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> I am packaging LibYAML for inclusion in Debian, so that their PyYAML
> package can be built against it.
> debian-devel recommended renaming the package from "yaml" to "libyaml",
> and suggested that the upstream tarball should be renamed as well. This
> is not absolutely necessary, since the tarball can be renamed for
> Debian, but would be less confusing.
Thank you for your efforts! The development of libyaml is somewhat
stalled, but I expect to resume it after I defend my dissertation.
The tarball name was chosen to be in line with names like sqlite or
expat. For instance, in Debian there's a binary package 'libsqlite3-0',
which is built from a source package 'sqlite3'. Similarly, there's a
source package 'expat' together with a binary package 'libexpat1'.
Following these examples, we could get a source package 'yaml' and a
binary package 'libyaml0.
I agree, however, that the name 'yaml' for a package might be confusing
since it's the name of a language that has multiple implementations and
it may be not polite to use this name for one particular implementation.
So I may rename the package if I come up with an alternative naming
scheme. I'll consider renaming the tarball and the project name for the