On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:59:51AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So what should be our policy concerning naming scheme ? > Do we choose name from functionnality ( graph and ldap ) or do we choose > from upstream name ( ocamlgraph and ocamldap ) ?
I see two advantages for libocaml{graph,ldap} and one for
lib{graph,ldap}:
libocaml{graph,ldap}:
1a) consistent with upstream name and thus more likely to be found by
users looking for the package (dpkg -l, apt-cache search)
1b) less polluting for the name space: libgraph-ocaml seems to denote that
this library is _the_ graph library for ocaml, but it's actually _a_
graph library, which happens to be named ocamlgraph
lib{graph,ldap}
2a) more simple
That said you can choose what, but (1a) is definitely a debian common
practice for almost all packages.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
