Bug#150456: coherency with mkfs and fsck filesystem package names
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:53:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> Ack. No, this not something that needs to be policy, as it has no affect
> on the interoperation of the packages and programs on the system. The
> names are probably the upstream names, and it's much better to match
> that, so that when documents say "build jfsutils" then Debian users
> can just translate to "apt-get install jfsutils".
>
> Manoj, AJ: See? I don't think everything needs to be in policy :-)
It doesn't need to be enforced, of course. If upstream already has
a name it ought to be kept. But IMHO is a good thing to agree on
a common naming scheme when maintainers are free to choose the name
of their packages.
For example, I have intention to package ufs[utils,progs,whatever]
but upstream doesn't use any special name for this.
Anyway, close this bug if you think it's not a good idea.
btw, suggestions about naming for ufs* welcome ;)
--
Robert Millan
"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5"
Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: