On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:59:51AM +0200, sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org wrote: > So what should be our policy concerning naming scheme ? > Do we choose name from functionnality ( graph and ldap ) or do we choose > from upstream name ( ocamlgraph and ocamldap ) ? I see two advantages for libocaml{graph,ldap} and one for lib{graph,ldap}: libocaml{graph,ldap}: 1a) consistent with upstream name and thus more likely to be found by users looking for the package (dpkg -l, apt-cache search) 1b) less polluting for the name space: libgraph-ocaml seems to denote that this library is _the_ graph library for ocaml, but it's actually _a_ graph library, which happens to be named ocamlgraph lib{graph,ldap} 2a) more simple That said you can choose what, but (1a) is definitely a debian common practice for almost all packages. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature