Re: Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:40 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of
> > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat
> > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a
> > binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former
> > but instead contains a completely different application.
>
> Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there
> would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the
> source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a
> suggestion.
How about ?
src: bpfcc
bin: bpfcc-tools, libbpfcc, libbpfcc-dev, bpfcc-lua, python-bpfcc
This relates well to what the tool is: BPF Compiler Collection, both in src and
binary names.
I think I'll stick with this name unless there are concerns.
Thanks.
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=9yGo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: