[csw-maintainers] Call for vote: -dev vs. -devel

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

once again with updated subject :-)

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:
> Am 13.02.2011 um 12:41 schrieb Maciej Bliziński:
>> 2011/2/13 Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org>:
>>> This is good.  It doesn't force what the standard catalog name is, it
>>> simply ensures that they match and tosses an error otherwise.  This
>>> makes a good deal of sense to me.  Presumably there are other parts of
>>> the code that look at things like 'devel' vs 'dev' etc?
>> 
>> The devel vs dev issue has been recently questioned[1] and not
>> resolved.  I planned to implement that check when the issue is
>> resolved.  The conversation started on pkgsubmissions, when I sent
>> libffi packages for release, working towards resolution of the ctypes
>> module problem in Python.  The conversation has stalled.  We've
>> established that from the people who care about this issue, 4 are for
>> -dev and 1 is for -devel.  However, Phil hasn't acknowledged that fact
>> and still hasn't released the libffi packages.  I can't say I'm happy
>> with issues being stalled like this.
>> 
>> Maciej
>> 
>> [1] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/pkgsubmissions/2011-February/002185.html
>> [2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/pkgsubmissions/2011-February/002190.html
> 
> Is there any new input? If no I suggest getting to a vote.
> (1) CSW*-dev   *_dev
> (2) CSW*-devel  *_devel
> While the current OpenCSW standard is (2) the solution (2) is short leaving
> more space for package names, is consistent with other packaging projects
> and without loss of meaning.


Best regards

 -- Dago