Hello David, Am Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:44:45PM -0300 schrieb David Pirotte: > In my initial message, I was merely asking to not apply the guile- > prefix rule to the g-golf package definition. > That I would not do this for other packages either was an answer to > iyzsong, as they were explaining 'the general rule'. Although I find it > strange wrt other guile-* pkgs for which that rule was also applied, I > have no 'strong feeleing', and think it's up to their authors to raise > their voice, if they consider this important.
we have packaging guidelines to make things predictable for users, and it is not up to every author/committer to name things as they wish. There does not seem to be a documented rule for Guile, but the first such rule was for Python: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Python-Modules.html and other languages followed the example. As a first rule, the upstream name g-golf should be kept as is. I looked at it, and there is no bin/ directory in the resulting binary package. So it seems to be a library package, and the language is to be prepended, resulting in guile-g-golf. Even if one of the "g" already stands for "guile", as it is not written out, we still add "guile-" to the front. This is analogous to the "py" for Python packages, as for instance in "python-pyyaml". Andreas
