[csw-maintainers] Standard for package naming

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

I wonder if there is a standard on package naming, because for
development packages there is a wide variety of suffixes, both
in catalog and package names:

CSWapache2-devel   apache2_devel - Apache 2.2 development support
CSWbdb44-devel     berkeleydb44_devel - BerkeleyDB 4.4 development  
support
CSWkrb5libdev      krb5_lib_dev - MIT Kerberos 5 developer libraries
CSWlibdbusdev      libdbusdev - DBus Message Bus System - development  
headers
CSWneon-devel      neon_devel - Neon HTTP and WebDAV development support
CSWoldapdevel      openldap_devel - OpenLDAP development support  
(oldapdevel)
CSWossldevel       openssl_devel - Openssl development support
CSWrenderdev       render_dev - fontconfig.org render development files

There seems to be a majority for *-devel for package-names and
*_devel for catalog names. However, for runtime packages this is not
so good:

CSWapache2rt       apache2rt - Apache 2.2 runtime libraries
CSWcurlrt          curlrt - Library for common Internet protocols  
Runtime
CSWgcc3corert      gcc3corert - GNU C Compiler Run Time
CSWgcc3g++rt       gcc3g++rt - GNU C++ Compiler Run Time
CSWgcc4corert      gcc4corert - GNU C Compiler Run Time
CSWgcc4g++rt       gcc4g++rt - GNU C++ Compiler Run Time
CSWlibtoolrt       libtool_rt - Generic library support runtime  
libraries
CSWmysql5rt        mysql5rt - run-time libraries for mysql5
CSWoldaprt         openldap_rt - OpenLDAP runtime libraries (oldaprt)
CSWosslrt          openssl_rt - Openssl runtime libraries
CSWvimrt           vimrt - vim shared runtime and documentation

Package names *rt are named inconsistent to *-devel as before.
Catalog names are mixed again, sometime *_rt, sometimes *rt.
Personally I like *-devel, *-rt, *_devel and *_rt, but I really
don't care what is chosen, but whatever we choose the package
names should be adjust and bugs should be filed for renaming.


Best regards

   -- Dago