Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, in practice the -utils suffix for the discussed type of > packages seems to be much more widely used than the -tools suffix that > is suggested by policy 8.2. On my system I get the following results: > > $ dpkg -l \*-tools | wc -l > 27 > > $ dpkg -l \*-utils | wc -l > 38 > > I propose a change in the wording of the last sentence, maybe to something > like this: > > This package might typically be named libraryname-utils or (at your > option) libraryname-tools; note the absence of the soversion in the > package name.
I suppose we could, but does it really matter? We already changed it from -runtime to -tools because almost no one uses -runtime, but -tools and -utils are close enough that I'm not sure there's any real difference. > However, if this would be a real recommendation regarding the package > name for run-time support programs, we would need many transitional > -utils packages poiting to many newly introduced -tools packages in the > archive to become policy compliant. ;) Which is why it's not and won't be. Hence the "might typically be named" wording. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
