[Fedora-packaging] Prefix packages written in C/C++ with C-, CXX- (was: tex related packages names)

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 11:04:48 UTC 2007

On 31/08/2007, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> > How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be
> > sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of
> > them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with
> > already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
> You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit
> silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for
> resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups:
> tag.
> Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.

Thing is, (la)tex add on packages are frequently named with rather
generic names, and so there is a very real world need for a prefix, I
would argue.... eg. preview, prosper, unicode, bytefield (all current
tetex add-ons)... I could imagine other programs chosing these names
too. It seems to be a fact that programmers lack originality in naming

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list