Naming guidelines question

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 08:42:18PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> And how about the rest of the guidelines which say that certain
> packages must be prefixed eg.  by perl-*, python-*, or be named like
> $appname-$plugin?  What about subpackages?

W/o backing up any side of the discussion: PIL (The python imaging
library) is either packaged as PIL or python-imaging. Similar for
PyGame, NumArray/Numerics and so on. I've often seen people comment on
not having been able to identify the python bits they were after.

What I really want to say is that upper/lowercase is the least of the
problems, there are other mappings performed that can be more
confusing or not to users/developers.

The suggestion to use normalized Provides (lowercase) should be
extended to more than capitalization. The normalized Provides should
conform to some strict guideline and be the ones used for dependencies
in other packages, and the core name of the package should be left to
the packager with the recommendation to match upstream conventions
closest.

Packagers win due to a normalized dependency system and packages have a
higher recognition value to users and upstream.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060527/da7e2cb1/attachment.sig>