Re: naming policy [ was uploaded ocamlgraph ]

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:25:31PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.

The policy was, i think, to use the name of the subdir of OCAMLLIBDIR as
name. Example : camlzip installs in +zip, so we use libzip-ocaml.

Well, we can naturally change the name of this subdir too, but this is
more problematic, since it will break anything that uses the library.

Friendly,

Sven Luther