weepingclown <weepingcl...@disroot.org> writes: > Hi, > > While it doesn't look all that nice, it's not a first for the archive > either. I remember a bunch of jaraco.* source packages and > python3-jaraco.* binary packages at least. That said, personally I do > find it very unpalatable and would prefer it if it can be cleaner.
Ok so I suggest to rename golang-go.gearno-encoding-base58 to golang-github-gearnode-base58 and I can do the upload. I can rename the git repository too. Martin is that okay with you? However all this begs the question what we should recommend as a source packaging style going forward. I don't think we can enforce rules, there are too many exceptions already. But we can recommend naming style. Do the following make sense: 1) If you package a Go library without any binary packages, use golang-HOSTINGSITE-HOSTINGPATH-PROJECTSTUB as the name, as in golang-github-gearnode-base58. 2) If you package a Go tool with optional library packages, pick something close to the tool name. For example, 'rekor' that ships a binary package 'rekor' and a Go library 'golang-github-sigstore-rekor-dev'. It also seems like a bug or maybe feature-request in dh-make-golang to adopt this policy. Right now it transcribes the Go namespace into the source package name. Of course, it is reasonable to use the Go namespace name as the inspiration for Debian source package names, like dh-make-golang suggests today, but it seems I'm not alone thinking this is unpalatable. /Simon > Best, > Ananthu > > On 11 December 2024 7:59:45 pm UTC, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> > wrote: >>The naming of golang-go.gearno-encoding-base58 is a bit weird, how about >>golang-github-gearnode-base58 and golang-github-gearnode-base58-dev >>instead? What is the Go team policy on this? >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
