On 15 June 2012 01:49, Sven-Hendrik Haase <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/15/2012 02:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote: >> >> (I'm not sure if this post belongs here or perhaps to aur-dev, sorry >> for confusion.) >> >> Is there any convention regarding structure and naming of packages? >> I have a project implemented in C, which consist of a library and >> collection of utilities. >> In Debian world, this project is split across three packages: >> abc0 - library >> abc-bin - utilities >> abc-devel - headers and files for developers >> >> I'd like to create a package for Arch. >> How should I structure? >> >> Also, I'd like to have two variants of packages: one for latest stable >> release >> and one for development upstream hosted in SVN. >> Shall I use -svn suffix for the latter? >> >> I have checked the Wiki of ABS, Package Development category, etc. >> and I haven't found answer to my questions. Any pointers? > > First of all, Debian would call it libabc0 etc.
Yes, you're right. > Then, name it exactly what upstream calls it. If upstream calls the lib > liblol, name it that. If they call it just lol, call it that. If you > make a svn variant, call it lol-svn. Great, I like the simplicity. > If you are unsure what upstream > calls it because they are inconsistent, make an educated guess judging > by the tarball name or something. OK, it makes sense. > Also, don't split packages like Debian > does. In your case, it would just be abc in Arch. I really appreciate how Arch deals with it in straightforward and natural manner :) Thanks! Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
