Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 15.02.2012, 11:22 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > Let's try to agree on a brief policy on naming schemes. Perhaps Perl, > Python and Java maintainers can comment on whether it would make sense > to have a common one (drafted as a DEP ?).
with my Haskell Group hat on, although not in your list, I am strongly in the favor of renaming such language-specific libraries unless there is a good reason for that (e.g. a name that is known beyond the programming community of that language, e.g. “xmonad”). Here is a selection of Haskell packages that are currently packaged as “haskell-foo” – surely nobody would want these taken as source package names directly: arrows authenticate binary cairo bzlib brainfuck boolean clock cgi csv debian(!) devscripts(!) dpkg hostname keys text zlib So I’d say that every group maintaining a set of packages from one source where the upstream names behave as if they have a namespace all for themselves (as it is the case with Haskell packages, but also for example R packages) needs to come up with a policy to take them out of the Debian namespace. I do not think that there is a need for an agreement between the different groups. None of the groups will likely want to spend the time to rename all source packages. Maybe the best we can do is to set good precedence for the next 100 programming languages to come. Looking at some examples I find: * Haskell: Almost exclusively haskell-foo * OCaml: A mix of ocaml-foo, ocamlfoo and some foo (even generic names such as why or calendar). * Perl: Mostly libfoo-perl * Lisp: Mostly cl-foo * Ruby: Some libfoo-ruby, some ruby-foo * Javascript: Mostly non-generic upstream names, node-foo for node components. * Java: About have are non-generic upstream names, other half are libfoo-java Counting ruby for both, there the vote is 4 to 3 between lang-foo and libfoo-lang. Obviously, I prefer lang-foo (shorter, less noise, in sorted list the packages are grouped) and would appreciate if new groups would follow the scheme. But again, I don’t think we’d need a formal DEP or something, and just leave it to the groups to do the sensible thing. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part