Re: Source package names for R libraries (and Perl, Python, Java, …).
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> While I agree that preserving namespace is an important goal, I
> think it should be balanced against the goal of making packages
> discoverable by users.
I agree; however, I think this is best accomplished by including the
upstream name in the package name (so it shows up in apt-cache search)
or in the cases where the language policy says otherwise, in the
description, so it also shows up in apt-cache search.
> As an example, one of the packages I maintain is known upstream as
> pyspf. The Debian python naming requirement for the binary is
> python-spf.
In this example, the Description of python-spf should include
something like "Also known as pyspf". [I should note that naming the
source pyspf doesn't really help with the discoverability of
python-spf, as apt-cache search does not search the Source: field...
this is why apt-cache search pyspf doesn't return python-spf, but
returns spf-tools-python.]
> Whatever rule you come up with, I don't think it's one size fits
> all.
I'm perfectly ok with specific exceptions to the rule, or even ending
up with a guideline that can be ignored when DDs decide that it's ok.
Don Armstrong
--
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society.
-- Mark Twain
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: