Bug#484809: package naming recommendations
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The original bug report is indeed far from drawing a complete picture.
Thanks for fleshing this out, your cases seem to cover very well what I
had in mind.
Your sentence is not clear. There are different cases IMO:
Yes, still for something like libfooabcbar27 it would be more reasonable
to name the source libfooabcbar instead of abc.
- 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-*")
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/