Em Sáb, 2009-03-14 às 02:37 +1100, Trent W. Buck escreveu: > Joachim Breitner <[email protected]> writes: > >> Should I keep gtk2hs as it is, instead of changing it to > >> haskell-gtk2hs or libghc6-gtk2hs? > > > > Yes, keep it as it is. Changing it is not worth it. Also, gtk2hs is a > > “real name” and not just a generic name for a haskell library (such > > has network, or zlib), so the missing haskell-prefix is not bad. I did > > the same thing for xmonad. > > Expressing what (I think) is the same intenet, but paraphrased: > > Debian/Python people seem to have a convention of calling packages > "python-foo" if it provides a library "foo", or just calling the package > "foo" if it provides an application or utility called "foo". > > In the case of packages which provide both (e.g. docutils), I think the > packager maintainer decides which is more "important" out of the library > or the app/utility. > > So it is "gtk2hs" not "haskell-gtk2hs" because it provides a utility > (right?)
No, it's a library. It's gtk2hs because when the package was made I think that this policy wasn't so stablished, and we just left as it is. And there's also Joachim's argument. Greetings. -- marcot http://marcot.iaaeee.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
