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

Re: Package separation/naming conventions

Le Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:13:42PM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> > * Ole Streicher <debian-devel@liska.ath.cx>, 2011-09-23, 13:58:
> >> My question is not the naming of the binary packages. The original library
> >> is called "wcslib", and to maximize confusion, there exists somewhere else
> >> another (not compatible, less used) library for the same task, called
> >> "libwcs", which is part of a "wcstools" package. To avoid naming confusion,
> >> I would like to name all packages "wcslib";
> >
> > If you believe that shared library name is confusing, then convince upstream
> > to change it.
> This is not an option: the "wcslib" exists under this name already for
> some years, and is always referenced under this name. Changing the name
> to libwcs would confuse people with the older libwcs library (which is
> incompatible).

Dear Ole,

although it looks ugly, perhaps you can consider calling your binary packages
libwcslib4, libwcslib-dev, libwcslib-doc and wcslib-util.  As you noted, users
are unlikely to have to install libwcslib by hand.  Developers will find
libwcslib-dev easily with apt-cache, and the description of your package will
present its contents clearly.  This has the advantage that everybody can rely
on the same convention that is used for most of the other C libraries: libfoo
is the foo library.

For a similar reason, I am maintaining a binary package called libbio-perl-perl,
built from the bioperl source package.

Have a nice week-end,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: