On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:36:26AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There seem to be 2 schemes in use already:
>
> For library packages:
> libcairo-ocaml
This is for binary packages, not for source packages (which is what you
usually specify in ITPs). We do not have a naming convention for source
packages beside trying to keep the name of upstream tarballs.
In some cases upstream names are too generic if took apart from an
implicitly assumed OCaml namespace, then we (usually) add an "ocaml-"
prefix.
> So what should "core" be called? We already have an ocaml-core.
We (me and Richard Jones on the Fedora side) are trying to push Jane St
to rename the project so that is is less generic. In the meantime core
has already been uploaded twice, the name I went for is "janest-core",
with binaries libcore-ocaml{,-dev}. See my previous post on the topic on
this mailing list.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature