On 21 January 2009 at 23:34, Andreas Tille wrote: | On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | | > The Policy Draft you reference is somewhat outdated and in need of a | > refresher. | | I've thought this because it is quite old from the tome stamp but | I failwd to found something more recent. | | > As for the names: On a few of my more recent ITPs for R / CRAN | > packages, folks suggested to not use the 'short' names. Hence I would | > suggest | > | > r-cran-msm | > r-cran-sp | > r-cran-spc | > r-cran-vcd | > | > for binary _and source_ packages and you may as well stick with | > | > r-cran-colorspace | | Fine, I will regard this for these packages. WHat would you | suggest for the recently uploaded package plotrix which is currently | in new? should I immediately ask ftpmaster to drop this upload | and rename the source package as well?
Whichever way you see fit. I myself have not been entirely consistent. Packages that were likely to clash (having two or three letter names) I upload as r-cran-$foo, but my own Rcpp went as source rcpp and binary r-cran-rcpp. | > as colorspace is so generic. | | I completely agree. I just added the explicite hint to my | ITPs (if I did not forgot it) to ask for comments on the | naming scheme because I was not really convinced that it is | the best idea these days (at the time of writing it was probably | reasonable). Yes, better safe than sorry. Probably better to keep the 'package name space' separated. Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
