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

Choosing a sensible name for a new package split from octave3.0

The octave3.0 gets the following Lintian message:

    I: octave3.0: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 5492kB 19%

Most of the arch-indep files are in the m-scripts directory:

    $ du -sh /usr/share/octave/3.0.1/m
    4.7M    /usr/share/octave/3.0.1/m

The Debian Octave Group is planning to put the architecture-independent
files in a separate package.  The octave3.0 will then depend on this

We are discussing about the most appropriate name from the new binary
package. The names that came up are the following, each one with some cons:

    octave3.0-mscripts (although, there will be other files than *.m in the

    octave3.0-common (although, this package will not be "common" to several
        other, only to octave3.0)

    octave3.0-data (although, this is not really "data", but "code" and
        other stuff)

    octave3.0-arch-indep (good name, although, no other package in Debian
        uses this suffix)



Reply to: