On Aug 06, 2015, at 04:20 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: >Policy has this to say on the subject of a different flat global namespace: > >"When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the >script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that >denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it." > >Does similar reasoning make sense for package names - the user of the >package is looking for the functionality of the package, not the >implementation language?
It does make sense to me that the package name containing the executable should reflect the executable's name. Thus in this case, the binary package name 'tox' makes the most sense. >If disambiguation is needed due to a naming conflict, a descriptive >prefix/suffix might make more sense: "tox-tester" or "tox-python-tester" >would be in the same spirit as chromium-browser (now chromium) vs. the >game Chromium B.S.U. (now chromium-bsu), and nodejs vs. ax25-node >fighting over "node". (Note the subtle distinction that nodejs is *for >use with* JavaScript, not *written in* JavaScript.) See my previous follow up for proposed DPP language here. Feedback welcome! Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150806150832.125da...@limelight.wooz.org
