On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > > Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and it starts to scrape the question of a > lot > > of package splitting with -devel packages. I think it would be safe in > > saying that that in general Arch does not do -devel packages, and it > would > > be silly to start devel packages our here on the ocaml front! > > > > But this sounds good, I think I that finding some solid ground on this > > little grey area will be the last part to the standard, I think I will > ask > > Richard Jones what he thinks (although he will give me some crap about > arch > > not splitting devel packages :) ) > > > > -Tom > > I wasn't actually suggesting that we split the packages (whence the > inclusion > of "Perhaps the ideal..."). I was just considering whether there would be > any > advantages to that approach. The advent of split packages gives it a > certain > allure, and the arguments for and against it are both based on KISS > principles. > > We could also go the simple route and say that all packages that provide > libraries|modules for general use should include the prefix in the name, > and if > they provide an application as well then they should "provide" the > application > name in the PKGBUILD, i.e. the pkgname without the prefix in most if not > all > cases. > > Vice versa would work too, but the prefixed name subsumes the unprefixed > name > and would thus result in a hit when searching for either, which I prefer. > > > > Regards, > Xyne >
Heh, if anything I was speaking hypothetically, and yes the advent of split packages does open up a barrage of packaging considerations. With all that said, I think that you are spot on with your description, I will add it to the wiki page later today. -Tom
