Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 17.07.2013, 18:13 -0300 schrieb Raúl Benencia: > I've updated the document with your advises. It'll be great to read your > opinions. Remember I'm not a native english speaker, so it would be awesome > if someone wants to double check the grammar. It’s good so far, but if you insist I’ll add my language style related comments. > | == Package naming convention == > | As it is usual with Debian packages, the source and binary package names > | derive from the upstream software name. This team uses the following > | convention for naming its packages: ^ I’d say “we” or put this in the passive form; the policy applies to all Haskell packages, not just those by the team. > | 1. All characters are lower-cased. > | 2. Underscores are turned into dashes. > | 3. If upstream name contains a ''haskell-'' or similar component, it will > | be dropped only if it refers to how the software is implemented > | (e.g. haskell-cnc and other). It should be kept if the library works > | ''on'' haskell (e.g. haskell-docs, haskell-packages etc.). > | > | There are three kind of packages maintained by this team: > | 1. Applications > | 2. Libraries > | 3. Source packages that produces applications and 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 depends on the software. If it is > | primarily an application that happens to build a library, then it shall be ^ as well > | treated it like the first group, naming the source package and the > | application binary package with the upstream name, and the library binary > | packages with the convention used by the second group (e.g. agda, > | xmonad). If it is primarily a library with some helper commands, then it > | shall be treated it like the second group, naming the application binary > | package with the convention used by the first group. > | > | In all cases, care should be taken when the upstream name is generic. For > | example, if the Diff package would provide a binary, the source package > | should still be "haskell-diff" or something similar in order to avoid name > | clashes with the main archive. Great! Feel free to push it to the policy repository. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part