Hi Raúl, Am Montag, den 15.07.2013, 19:29 -0300 schrieb Raúl Benencia: > 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 convention that evolved from the outdated Haskell policy.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 made an attempt to update it three years ago, but did not complete it. The darcs repo is at darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/policy; once we have discussed it here feel free to put the final wording there (and put your name prominently in the Copyright Notice :-)), and link it from the Processes wiki. > 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. cool, thanks. > | == 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). Just for completeness: Add that the name is lower-cased. Also add that a possibly “haskell-” component in the upstream name, if it just refers to how it is implemented (e.g. haskell-cnc and other bindings packages) can be dropped. It should be kept if the library works _on_ haskell (haskell-docs, haskell-packages etc.). > | 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’d say it depends: Is it primarily an application that happens to build a library, treat it like group 1 (agda, xmonad). If it is primarily a library with some helper commands, treat it like group 2. All well, although care should be taken in group 1 and 3 if the name is generic: Even if the Diff package would provide a binary, the source package should still be haskell-diff or something the like. 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