Re: Bug#484381: ITP: yaml -- YAML 1.1 parser and emitter written in C

[Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU>]

I received this response from the upstream author regarding the package
name.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Kirill Simonov <xi@resolvent.net>
To: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: LibYAML tarball name
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:05:16 +0300

Hi Anders,

Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> I am packaging LibYAML for inclusion in Debian, so that their PyYAML
> package can be built against it.
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484381>
> 
> 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 
next release.


Thanks,
Kirill