[csw-maintainers] Package naming policy

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Peter,

Am 28.12.2010 um 09:37 schrieb Peter FELECAN:
> Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:
>> I vaguely remember the package naming policy allows several different
>> variants of package names like
>>  CSWfoo-dev
>>  CSWfoodev
>>  CSWfoodevel
>>  CSWfoo-devel
>> 
>> I propose to stick to one consistent naming and retire all other ones.
>> Specifically I propose to force naming to CSWfoo-devel now that we have
>> longer package names.
> 
> Working yesterday on this kind of stuff I remarked that the majority of
> our development packages follow this convention and use _devel suffix
> (116 of 117 explicitly identified as development packages). So it's too
> late to use the _dev suffix without changing a lot of packages
> name, even though I would preferred _dev as its shorter, deliver enough
> information and its homogeneous with other distributions.

Right, I was more focussing on the package name, where the old "standard"
was sort of CSWfoodevel, but IMHO should be changed to be CSWfoo-devel.
Nonetheless the shorter and more standard -dev would be even better.
More opinions?


Best regards

  -- Dago