[csw-maintainers] packages names normalization (long)

[Philip Brown]

PS:

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:26:25PM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote:
> There is something missing: the nil suffix which, in my opinion,
> group the components which are *run*, i.e. binaries, shell scripts, &c
> 
> A package with a nil suffix, using the above examples, has the form:
> 
> CSWsoft      soft
> CSWsoftrt    soft_rt
> CSWsoftdevel soft_devel
> CSW softdoc  soft_doc

and.. some packages are like this already.

It depends on the individual software in question, whether there is, as you
put it, a "nil suffix" variant of the package.

And as Dagobert pointed out, "library" type things arent usually directly
installed via pkg-get. They are usually only pulled in as dependancies.