[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: package name conventions?

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:37:16PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Antonio S. de A. Terceiro <asaterceiro@inf.ufrgs.br> [2004.11.17.2330 +0100]:
> > libfactory++-dev - C++ template factory framework
> ... that this is my software, which I named libfactory because I did
> not know better. It's also just a set of headers, so more a toolkit
> than a library... but nomenclature is vague here...

The problem with a lib*-dev package is that people expect a lib* to go along
with it, but on the other hand people don't expect a build-depends on a
lib*.  And, of course, nobody expects the spanish inquisition... <grin>

> It would be interesting to get some comments on this.
> FWIW, I am now almost in favour of pstreams -- as Antonio originally
> called it -- as it's the product name after all.

From what I can see, the package wouldn't provide anything useful at
runtime, which is the intent of lib* package (IMO), and a lib*-dev package
is for providing build-time stuff for a lib* package, so straight up
pstreams seems like a winner to me.

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: