Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Choosing a sensible name for a new package split from octave3.0

[Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>]

* Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net> [2008-09-13 11:19]:

> Clearly, -common and -data are clearly the most common general-purpose
> suffixes for architecture-independant packages. I would probably use
> -common in your case.

* Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> [2008-09-13 20:10]:

> Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> writes:
> 
> >     octave3.0-common (although, this package will not be "common" to several
> >         other, only to octave3.0)
> 
> This would be my preference. It's common across architectures, which
> is a sensible enough semantic fit.

* Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> [2008-09-13 17:21]:

> Why not just octave3.0-scripts? (note the missing 'm').
> It would make more sense than a -data or -common package to me as it really
> describes the content.

Thanks for your replies.  I think we are leaning towards octave3.0-common.
This was also the suggestion of Thomas Weber in a thread in
pkg-octave-devel.  Otherwise, octave3.0-scripts would be a good name if the
package contained only scripts, but this is not going to be the case.

Cheers,
 
-- 
Rafael