On 27 April 2016 6:16:56 pm IST, Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> wrote: > >by your line of thinking we would be splitting every single application >in 2 packages (foo and ruby-foo, foo and python-foo, foo and >libfoo-perl), because every reasonably engineered application has >library code. > >That does not seem reasonable to me. Is anyone adivising people to do >that?
It is a balance between following standards and common sense. If the package is used mainly as a library, name it ruby-foo. If it is mainly used as an application, name it foo. Outliers, as always, will occur - but in negligible quantities. As Antonio pointed out, almost all applications with worthy popularity and considerable implementational architecture, probably have a library component. Splitting packages, that too including the small and trivial ones, doesn't seem reasonable to me too. It's just an additional, unwanted burden for package maintainers. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
