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

Re: camlzip 1.01-1 uploaded ...

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:42:38PM +0100, Georges Mariano wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:30:32 +0100
> Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Ridiculous, definitely...
> > 
> > So you propose ....
> > Sorry but I can't remember the package name that you are
> > proposing.
> I already said what I think about this question...
> > Please, constructive-only post.
> oh I see...
> Sorry, but I can't remember the reason why you _have to_ change
> the upstream name ? (i.e what's the problem with it ?)
> Please, constructive-naming-change only. 
> I think this the right requirement here.

But at least Stefano is maintaining some packages ...

BTW, there arte only so much permutations available, and none seem right.

I had thoughts about: 

ocamllib-camlzip and ocamllib-camlzip-dev

or even 

libocaml-camlzip and libocaml-camlzip-dev.

But none sound better than what we have.

We could go for the plain :

camlzip-lib and camlzip-lib-dev

or something such, but the probleme here is that not all packages begin the
same (no caml at the begining, some use caml, others ocaml, other ml, other
labl, other nothing), and thus you also don't have the easy recognition (i
remember you were complaining about that previously, did you not).

I don't think we can manage to force all upstream to use a common naming
scheme, so we better adapt, and we should keep the upstream name in the
package name, or else nobody will find its stuff back.

BTW, Stefano, we would need a new version of the meta-package, or pseudo
packages or whatever their name is, once the transition is done.


Sven Luther

Reply to: