Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:17:43PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of
> the science packages to call it -data.
I'm perfectly fine with the -data name - but I see no reason why the
source package should have a different name.
> > 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?
It is no problem but at several points it is somehow confusing to have
different names. I would not do this without good reason and I do not
see a good reason to use gpaw-data also for the source package.
> We have quite a few pacakges that are called as source package (due to
> upstream choices) than the binary package.
I know this and that's why I give slight warning that I would not do
this. I would consider deriving from the upstream name choice for the
source package as well. It was just a hint for a newcomer and I have
no strong opinion about it. Just mentioning it - if it is choosen
intentionally that is OK for me and I will upload as is.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: