[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Go (golang) packaging

* Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg@debian.org> [130102 09:13]:
> Given that we already have python-* and ruby-*, I’d find golang-* more
> consistent.

We also have lib*-perl.
Ruby seems to have changed recently from lib*-ruby to ruby-*. (Does
anyone know of the reason that changed? For I only remember all the
reasons for the old naming scheme and see no reasons in favor of the new)

> Which specific tools/places do you have in mind that have to
> truncate package names?

Most GUIs will truncate depending on the size of the window.

> >> (and of course just “codesearch” for the binaries).
> >
> > I assume s/binaries/sources/? And I'd suggest to just not policy the
> No, I really meant binaries, as in “cgrep”, “cindex” and “csearch” in
> this specific case.

And what is the name of the binary package those programs will be in?

> > Another question: Have you considered asking for a archive Section for
> > those packages? I guess with no special section yet all those packages
> > would be section libdevel as they are for static linking only, wouldn't
> > they?
> As pabs has pointed out, I did that, but the general rule of thumb is
> that we want to have lots of packages first and an archive section
> second.
Too avoid packaging mistakes and to have the wording ready I'd suggest
to already prepare the wording (I guess in the section later will be
everything that is is now in libdevel plus golong toolchain packages,
while everything providing programs to be in their respective section).

        Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: