Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:06:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Further remark on the package after having a sponsoring look: Is there
> any specific reason to name the source package gpaw-setups and the
> resulting binary gpaw-data.
See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of
the science packages to call it -data.
> For a single binary package it is more convenient to choose the same
> name for both.
Can you explain what the convenience is? Or rather what the problems
with different names are?
We have quite a few pacakges that are called as source package (due to
upstream choices) than the binary package.
Michael
Reply to: