Oh, we have conflicting views here: * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 14:07]:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:15:59PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > 2) How should the nonfree package be called? The options would be: > > > > libparse-recdescent-perl-nonfree > > libparse-recdescent-perl-doc > > I would go for that one. No need to append nonfree to every package > name in non-free ;) * Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 14:14]: > Since the original package is libparse-recdescent-perl, I would name the > non-free package libparse-recdescent-tutorial (if it really only > includes a tutorial) or libparse-recdescent-doc-nonfree (if it is more > than just the tutorial). In the latter case, I appended -nonfree to not > block the -doc package name once free documentation becomes available. I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip the "lib" at the beginning of the name. The upstream Perl module is called Parse-RecDescent, so I would call the package parse-recdescent-doc-nonfree. What do you think? -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
