On 07/14/2013 08:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Armin K. wrote: > >> 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. > > packagename-packageversion is the most common usage. I just went > through the for the entire book doing the package currency scripts. > There I had to use the upstream names and spelling. >
I suggest we use this despite the crazy tarball naming from upstream. > There are a lot of names that I don't like: > > LVM2-2.02.98 > expect5.45 > sysvinit-2.88dsf > tcl8.6.0-src This is one package I wouldn't like to see in the changelog like this, brrr ... > tzdata2013d > iproute2-3.9.0 > boost_1_54_0 > > I also don't like the version numbers like: > > shadow-4.1.5.1 > > Do we really need major.minor.micro.patch numbers? Three should be all > that's needed. > > Some versions have just gone to a sequential number: > > kmod-14 > systemd-205 > > But that's OK. > > If it were up to me, I'd change a lot of these names, but it is really > up to the developers so it's not my call. > > For BLFS, we need to be consistent with upstream. That said, I don't > want to make a special effort to change the book right now. Changing > the entries as the packages are updated is OK with me. > > -- Bruce > -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
