Hi,
> > What would be the binary package name?
> >
> > Currently, the practice seems like:
> > *-plugins
> > (which might be a bit too generic, looking at it now).
>
> My current package uses ladspa-vcf.
> Indeed the -plugins seems not very good to me.
>
> I'd prefer ladspa-vcf or perhaps ladspa-plugins-vcf.
>
> What do you think?
Looking at gstreamer, they chose
gstreamer<version>-<pluginname>
ladspa could do the same with
ladspa-<pluginname>
i.e. your initial choice sounds like the most logical solution.
Although theoretically ladspa hosts can have 'ladspa' in their package
name, it's less likely to have ladspa-only hosts. On the other hand,
plugins usually are ladspa-only plugins, so the name would be logical.
This kind of conflicts with current DSSI plugin naming scheme, but I
think DSSI might be the wrong one in this case.
Something to note in policy[1], I suppose.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp} Debian Project
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
