Hartmut Goebel <h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com> skribis: > I propose to generalizing the specification [1,2] as we already have for > Perl, Python and Java for most programming languages. In short: > > Package names should be prefixed with the name of the language and if > the package name already contains the name of the language, it gets > removed there. > > I quickly scanned the current package definitions and found: > > guile: 2 package to change > haskell: ca. 2 package to be changed > julia: 0 > d (lcd.xscm): 0 > nqc (lego.scm): 0 --> prefix "lego-"? OTOH this is a commercial brand > lua: 0 > m4: 0 > ocaml: 1 > ruby: 0 > r (statistics.scm): 0 > scheme: 1 or 2
What do you mean by “scheme”? Scheme packages are usually not interchangeable among Scheme implementations, so we’d have guile != racket != MIT Scheme, etc. > smalltalk: 0 > tcl: 0 I’m all for it, especially given that this is pretty much the status quo. :-) So, patches welcome for the 5-or-so packages above. A common exception to the rule is packages that offer a CLI/GUI that is a common entry point to the package–e.g., Guix, Unison, patches, Pius, Xmonad, Awesome. IOW, the rule would apply to libraries only. There may be other cases where it’d be useful to make exceptions. Thoughts? Ludo’.
