beecrypt-java (Was: rawhide report: 20050207 changes)

[Jeff Johnson]

Dag Wieers wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Anthony Green wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 05:58 -0500, Build System wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>beecrypt-4.1.2-1
>>>----------------
>>>* Sat Feb 05 2005 Jeff Johnson <jbj at jbj.org> 4.1.2-1
>>>- upgrade to 4.1.2
>>>- put java components in sub-package.
>>>- check that /usr/lib64 is not used on alpha (#146583).
>>>      
>>>
>>You called this sub-package beecrypt-java.  I suggest renaming this to
>>something like beecrypt-java-jni.  It only contains the JNI C side of
>>the beecrypt java library.  The library of java code for beecrypt is
>>widely known as "beecrypt-java" (google for beecrypt-java-2.0.0.zip).
>>beecrypt-java hasn't been packaged yet, but it will surely require this
>>beecrypt-java-jni.
>>    
>>
>
>I would suggest java-something as a standard name, just like 
>python-something, perl-something and other subpackage policies.
>

As long as beecrypt-java is a subpkg, I prefer "beecrypt-java"

OTOH, if standalone package, I would prefer "java-beecrypt", like, say, 
"python-sqlite3"
today too.

My rationale is to try to optimize the primary key retrieve on package 
file names, so
that "similar" group together when eyeballing, say, "ls -al" lists.

All is in the eye of the beholder of course, ymmv, everyone's does.

And I think "beecrypt-java-jni" waiting for a java package to magically 
appear
is rather effete, and confuses rpm package names with file names 
unnecessarily.

And no matter what, popt as subpkg of rpm confuses everyone.

But that's just me.

73 de Jeff