Bug#484809: package naming recommendations
Hi,
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> I wonder whether the developer's reference should offer recommendations
> for the naming of packages along the lines of:
> - for source packages do not blindly take the name of the upstream
> tarball but consider something related to the binary package's naming
> scheme
> (rationale: namespace for source packages seems to be fairly
> polluted. In particular having binary and source packages of the
> same name seems undesirable)
Your sentence is not clear. There are different cases IMO:
- the binary packages are versioned and change regularly, the source
package should not change regularly and thus use a different name
(example: source "linux-2.6" and binary "linux-image-*")
- there's a single binary package generated and its name doesn't change
over time, the source package name should be the same as it avoids
confusion
(ex: all perl modules, I find it annoying to have a source "perlipq"
that generates the single binary package "libiptables-ipv4-ipqueue-perl")
- there are multiple binary packages generated and one of the package can
be considered the "main" one, the source package should match the name
of the central binary package (think source "software" with binary
"software" and "software-data" and similar cases)
> - for libary packages, the package name should match with the soname
> (as checked by lintian) unless there is a compelling (non-aesthetic)
> reason not to.
> (rationale: the lintian warning seems to be a good way to
> indicate when something unexpectedly happened to the soname if the
> package started out using a name lintian does not warn about)
Ack.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: