On 07/14/2013 07:41 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I'm afraid that I don't agree. The names in the book should reflect the > tarball names when using a version. There are many deviations though > that I really don't like. For instance, we use 'ISO Codes-3.44' when > the tarball name is 'iso-codes-3.44'. >
Ehm, we had a discussion on this one and started making package names as the tarball ones. Seems we never completed it, but I remember that GNOME packages were affected. > Sometimes we capitalize the names we use (e.g. Apr-1.4.8, > Aspell-0.60.6.1, etc) and sometimes we don't (e.g. libassuan-2.1.1, > libatasmart-0.19, etc). > > My desired rule of thumb is to use the tarball name as defined by the > package maintainer. I realize that this creates a problem when using > the name at the start of a sentence where the normal rule is to > capitalize or when using the tarball name as a proper name that is also > usually capitalized, however I think we should be consistent everywhere > we use the tarball name. > > I don't have a problem with using, for example, Aspell, by itself, but > the tarball name is aspell-0.60.6.1. > > -- Bruce > How about packagename-packageversion then? I personally use packagename packageversion (no dash between name and version) or even a modified name (ie, GStreamer Ugly Plugins instead of gst-plugins-ugly). We could change remainging packages that contain spaces in their titles and xrefnames to the correct packagenames if necesary. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
