On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:56:15PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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.
Yes, it makes sense for libraries that are "tied" to their language. Of course: > There may be other cases where it’d be useful to make exceptions.
