[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev

[Peter FELECAN]

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".
>
> 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.

> 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.

I'm all for voting, as usual.
-- 
Peter