Foobar-hurd seems appropriate
On Apr 15, 2012 5:46 PM, "Samuel Thibault" <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Among the things we'd like to do for the wheezy release, there are
> packaging incubator/hurdextra things. Some packages have already been
> uploaded on debian-ports, but we should push that to main. There is just
> one pending question: how should we package the sources? The source
> package names might easily conflict with existing packages. For
> instance, libfuse-dev would conflict with the linux libfuse-dev, which
> is why I called it libfuse-hurd on debian-ports. I've called the source
> package libfuse, but probably it's be safer to call it libfuse-hurd, or
> perhaps hurd-libfuse, probably it's be safer to call it libfuse-hurd, or
> perhaps hurd-libfuse? The same happens with smbfs, which we might want
> to call hurd-smbfs or smbfs-hurd, etc.
>
> Essentially, what I'm wondering is whether to use hurd-foobar or
> foobar-hurd. The former makes it easy to get the list of hurdish
> packages, just having a look at h/ in the archive. The latter makes it
> easy to find the hurdish variant of a debian package. I'd tend to prefer
> the former, what people think about it?
>
> Samuel
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 20120415144622.GM4648@type.famille.thibault.fr">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20120415144622.GM4648@type.famille.thibault.fr
>
Foobar-hurd seems tidier for me.I am searching for packages mostly based on name.