Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > when tentatively calling "guix refresh", I saw a number of packages > called "r-r-...", for instance "r-r-oo". Should this not be simplified > to "r-oo"? We do not have separate packaging rules for R, but in analogy > with python and perl, it would make sense to preprend "r-" and at the > same time drop all other occurrences of R inside the original name. > > What do you think?
I’d like to keep it the way it is. In CRAN there are a number of packages with very similar names such as “graph” and “rgraph”, or “utils” and “R.utils”. There is also a great number of R packages that happen to start with “R” or “r”, such as “Rmarkdown” or “rtracklayer”. In the case of “R.oo” (which we name “r-r-oo”) there is no other package with a conflicting name, but I find it very hard to know when I should strip off “r-” to get the desired package in other cases. The prefix “r-” isn’t as long as “python-” or “perl-”, so to me it doesn’t seem so bad to keep it, especially when it helps disambiguate packages with otherwise similar names. ~~ Ricardo
