[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev

[Maciej Bliziński]

2011/2/7 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
> Philip Brown <phil at opencsw.org> writes:
>
>> 2011/2/6 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>>>
>>>> _devel has been our defacto standard for a long time.
>>>> we have 4 packages with _dev. but over 100 with _devel.
>>>
>>> According to Dago[1], there are 4 different suffixes to dev packages
>>> in use.  In a discussion about standardizing on one of them, there
>>> were 4 voices [2] [3] [4] [5] supporting the -dev suffix.  There were
>>> no voices against.  I conclude that there's consensus to use "-dev".
>>>
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013541.html
>>> [2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013546.html
>>> [3] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013547.html
>>> [4] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013548.html
>>> [5] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013564.html
>>
>>
>> Thank you for doing the research.
>> I acknowlge that there was previous discussion on the issue, and that
>> there were no "dissents" at that time.
>>
>> That being said:
>> - renames are a pain in the butt
>> - there are **over 100 of them to be done
>> - the likelyhood of all of them getting done in less than a year, is
>> very small. My guess is, it would take 2 years to get them all.
>>
>> If the end goal is "consistency", then the plan that will get us
>> "consistent" the fastest, is to pick _devel as the official standard.
>> I will also note, tha the *original* proposal, as you referenced, in
>> http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013541.html
>>
>> was actually "devel".

Yes, but in a later e-mail[6] Dago prefers -dev and doesn't change his
opinion afterwards.

[6] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013546.html

>> Given the preponderance of packages with _devel, my definate vote is
>> against _dev, and for _devel.
>>
>> Peter F was a little ambiguous in his email which you referenced,
>> http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2010-December/013548.html
>> where he says renames are "not a great deal".
>> It is unclear to me if that means "not a big deal", or "not a good thing"
>
> "not a big deal" != "not a good thing"
>
>> If the latter, it could be a vote for devel, and against -dev.
>> Which would make it 3 to 2; rather not a "consensus" any more.
>
> As it wasn't the latter, it's a vote for -dev and that makes 3 votes for
> -dev and 2 against.

Taking into account Dago's current opinion (as far as I can tell), it
looks like it's 4 vs 1.