Re: Bug#363108: Do we really need the laspa- prefix?

[Joost Yervante Damad <joost@lumatec.be>]

On Saturday 05 August 2006 05:28, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'd  like to sponsor  the upload  this package, but  before  I need to
> > clear the naming convention of ladspa related packages.
> >
> > Generally  speaking I think that  Debian  packages names should try to
> > match exactly  the upstream  project name. In  this  case the upstream
> > name is "vcf", which I think would be an  acceptable name for a Debian
> > package.
> >
> > The ladspa- prefix seems to really needed to me in  this case, and, as
> > Junichi also pointed in  the previous post  of this bug, the essential
> > is to 'Provides: ladspa-plugin'.
> >
> > So if nobody has nothing in contrary I'd  upload the package under the
> > name "vcf" (for both source package and binary package).
>
> The only possible objection I could imagine is that the name is too
> short.  However, if such a package does not exist anywhere else, then
> that's not a problem; please go ahead.

I don't mind, indeed the Provides: will mean that they are easily seen as 
ladspa plugins.

greetings, Joost

-- 
The planet Andete is famous for it's killer edible poets.