Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 15.02.2012, 11:22 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Let's try to agree on a brief policy on naming schemes. Perhaps Perl,
> Python and Java maintainers can comment on whether it would make sense
> to have a common one (drafted as a DEP ?).
with my Haskell Group hat on, although not in your list, I am strongly
in the favor of renaming such language-specific libraries unless there
is a good reason for that (e.g. a name that is known beyond the
programming community of that language, e.g. “xmonad”).
Here is a selection of Haskell packages that are currently packaged as
“haskell-foo” – surely nobody would want these taken as source package
names directly:
arrows
authenticate
binary
cairo
bzlib
brainfuck
boolean
clock
cgi
csv
debian(!)
devscripts(!)
dpkg
hostname
keys
text
zlib
So I’d say that every group maintaining a set of packages from one
source where the upstream names behave as if they have a namespace all
for themselves (as it is the case with Haskell packages, but also for
example R packages) needs to come up with a policy to take them out of
the Debian namespace.
I do not think that there is a need for an agreement between the
different groups. None of the groups will likely want to spend the time
to rename all source packages.
Maybe the best we can do is to set good precedence for the next 100
programming languages to come. Looking at some examples I find:
* Haskell: Almost exclusively haskell-foo
* OCaml: A mix of ocaml-foo, ocamlfoo and some foo (even generic
names such as why or calendar).
* Perl: Mostly libfoo-perl
* Lisp: Mostly cl-foo
* Ruby: Some libfoo-ruby, some ruby-foo
* Javascript: Mostly non-generic upstream names, node-foo for node
components.
* Java: About have are non-generic upstream names, other half are
libfoo-java
Counting ruby for both, there the vote is 4 to 3 between lang-foo and
libfoo-lang. Obviously, I prefer lang-foo (shorter, less noise, in
sorted list the packages are grouped) and would appreciate if new groups
would follow the scheme. But again, I don’t think we’d need a formal DEP
or something, and just leave it to the groups to do the sensible thing.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part