Hi team, One of the first things that came into my mind yesterday when I was about to start the soon-to-be-canceled misfortune package was the name of the source and binary packages. TTBOMK there seems to be a tacit naming convention that evolved from the outdated Haskell policy. I've unsuccessfully tried to find an updated document. If that document exists, please point me in the right direction. If it doesn't, please keep reading. :-) For newbies like me it would be great to have some guidelines about this topic, so I propose to write a new section in the Processes[0] wiki page with this information. Here is a draft that I've written according to what I could deduce along with the Haskell Policy and an email[1] Joachim sent I few months ago. Please, keep in mind that I'm not a native english speaker, so probably there are better ways to compose what I've written. Patches are welcome! [0] https://wiki.debian.org/Haskell/CollabMaint/Processes [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-haskell/2013/02/msg00061.html | == Package naming convention == | | There are three kind of packages maintained by this team: | 1. Applications | 2. Libraries | 3. Applications that also produces library binary packages | | For the first group, the convention is to name the source and binary | packages with the upstream software name. | | For the second group, the convention is to name the source package with | "haskell-<upstream>", and the library binary packages with | libghc-<upstream>-(dev|doc|prof). | | For the third group, the convention is to name the source package and the | application binary package with the upstream software name, and the | library binary packages with the convention used by the second group. I'm not sure about the third group, but I've seen this practice in the xmonad[2] package. [2] http://sources.debian.net/src/xmonad/0.11-5/debian/control What are your opinions on this matter? Cheers. -- rul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature