Re: Doc package naming
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:52:25PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:00:03PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> >> Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >>> libhaskell-foo-doc.
> >> Why not just foo-doc?
> > Because I don't think we should be making packages called things like
> > x11-doc
> > readline-doc
> > unix-doc
> > time-doc
> Right, but certainly in these cases the source package is haskell-x11
> instead of x11, right? So haskell-x11-doc makes sense.
I meant "foo" to be the Cabal package name, not the Debian source
> The "lib" prefix still doesn't quite make sense.
Why not? They're library docs, aren't they?
It seems to be standard practice, e.g. "libgmp3-doc" for a C library and
"vim-doc" for a C program.
$ apt-cache search '.*-doc$' | uniq | wc -l
$ apt-cache search '^lib.*-doc$' | uniq | wc -l
> >>> Note that if ghc doesn't build on a platform then you don't have
> >>> haddock, so can't update a doc index. You also can't create docs on such
> >>> a platform. However, currently ghc builds on all platforms.
> >>>> Secondly, why duplicate "haskell" in haskell-haskelldb-doc?
> >>> Consistency.
> >> With what?
> > With the names used for packages which aren't called haskell* upstream.
> But why no "lib" prefix then?
It should have a lib prefix too, but you only asked about the