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

Re: Removing non-free documentation from a package

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:12:06PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> [2005-09-15 10:07]:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > > I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree.  I would also strip the
> > > "lib" at the beginning of the name.  The upstream Perl module is called
> > > Parse-RecDescent, so I would call the package parse-recdescent-doc-nonfree.
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > Stick to the perl package naming convention. Please.
> Well, the new package will not contain a Perl module, so I do not see the
> need to sticking to the conventions (cf section 4.2 of the Debian Perl
> Policy).  The package containing the Parse::RecDescent module with the
> tutorial stripped is still called libparse-recdescent-perl.

Doc packages are usually called package-doc.  I see no reason to change that
here, except that adding non-free seems to make sense.  Removing "lib" would
just confuse the name, because it would be less clear which package the doc is

> At any rate, I guess you are suggesting the name
> libparse-recdescent-perl-doc-nonfree, aren't you?

That's what I'd suggest.

> Good chances to win the longest-package-name contest in Debian :-) 

Non-free isn't technically "in Debian" :-P

Anyway, I don't see any problem with having a long name.  Debian is high
quality software, which will not stop working because of it. :-)


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: