[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev

[Philip Brown]

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".

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"
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.


Peter mentioned a "later email" on it, but I dont have time to search right now.

100 renames to get to "consistency", vs 4 renames, seems like a rather
backwards approach.
I think this should be put to an official vote, rather than
'consensus'. With clarity about the point that if the goal is merely
"consistency", then _devel is the obvious choice in front of us.