On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:12:43PM -0500, Adam Heath uttered: > > Sorry for the large cc, but it is about time that debian had a unified policy > on these package names. > Right.
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay. Note that java policy states that "Libraries packages must be named
> > lib-XXX-java."
>
> I think the java policy is wrong. Why should java be any different than any
> other interpeted language, when naming packages?
>
Indeed. Java should follow suit, consistancy, and all that.
> In fact, I see variations in python, perl, and java. This is what I would
> like to see:
>
> lib(name)-(language)
>
> Where name is the upstream name, appropriately named for the package.
>
Indeed. I just took over the mailtools package, and have renamed it too
libmailtools-perl as per Perl Policy, as should have been done from the
start.
> > Below we see an approximate list of all java library packages available in
> > debian. One observes that more than *half* of them are named
> > "libXXX-java"
> > instead of "lib-XXX-java". We even see libpgjava with no dashes
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > Does this bother anyone else but me?
>
> Yes, it does, but not for the same reason.
>
I'm also in favour of changing Java Policy to conform to Perl and Python
Policy.
--
Steve
BOFH excuse #274: It was OK before you touched it.
pgpGGerF0hJrz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
