-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:40 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of > > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat > > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a > > binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former > > but instead contains a completely different application. > > Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there > would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the > source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a > suggestion.
How about ? src: bpfcc bin: bpfcc-tools, libbpfcc, libbpfcc-dev, bpfcc-lua, python-bpfcc This relates well to what the tool is: BPF Compiler Collection, both in src and binary names. I think I'll stick with this name unless there are concerns. Thanks. - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhAHaAACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWnMqg/+JGft9tC0/Pmvi4dAWeBw1dXHf86+8U06LDe05N+PS6c3ery6WsmMKdEM Nav7tcqjCBHESHHm1PrifWU8CSJqizwoPStD8jsBF7woRbD/FPIE2+N4ZCXI1mBq doSwMcuZt/LfFhKR/lwmptl1HS2FfNDr/pJCGd0D7ZVtaUSqEFES5vDwx5YE5S9E MyeYmW56hxEmcb5ASIjHHqGnTAG7wd1tKoQn2w7tcTAbdfSBgU53jlSekiy/b7fC y3o8EzUCjQBnrCQGPXN1/0jpaqrf5e4wq8ETpttV25P+dZNAa4jtf7SuHRcZnMDg UfzmTl45YxZVbOKWAX6UykYMgyUUSzYC1aQPGRyY1M9dgruAWRUTK0OzBaYmgAkv 9UDDaNPtMOLFR6YW3ZndH0qfkZIl6q0+WJVqDBBBmsPPZFRd9ilVyXv0UQffl2c3 9Etwh48wp/aFFnyG1IOqteuE688Y9CFTO6cVxHbkXRQx4C4xWZ4vjxGQC/r0j4Ne OFGk4zjFdMdfeNYGMfofe6IyUy6YhbCQavj25sXGM/ed2P0V8yWMnaMjnX94+L6m UL8102MZS2ei3FF/lyrubD0Up59rQCeNygJDqM9gXDT44PUY829qXaJqeNlstsAK 6mkvMyDiMj1A5rZnrY7Ge9i6RWibFvqiUssFixE0ToNwKExC6ZE= =9yGo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----