On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote: > I we can either rename existing packages, or use the double-dash. I don't > care which. ...
The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current practice, minimizing package renaming, and minimizing mangling of upstream naming and versioning. PKG-VER-REV.EXT PKG: free-form VER: No '-' (perhaps necessitating mangling of upstream versioning) REV: No '.' and No '-' EXT: No '-' -PKG and VER from upstream, mangled by maintainer only as necessary -All parts required for all packages -Debian maintainer to choose appropriate PKG and VER for debain-specific packages and for packages which are splits or joins of upstream packages > ... We must, however, make a decision reasonably soon. One of the > biggest problems of Debian, and the one that still may cause it to fail, > is it's design-by-committee nature. If we are to argue this issue for three > weeks, we'd might as well quit now. Past practice to terminate protracted discussion and move on to action has been for Ian M to make a decision based on the info brought out by discussion and proclaim that that's the way it'll be done. I'd accept such a proclimation from you, barring opposition from Ian M. Whatever decision is made, it should be expressed in updated packaging guidelines on project/standards.
