Hi Peter, Am 28.12.2010 um 09:37 schrieb Peter FELECAN: > Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: >> I vaguely remember the package naming policy allows several different >> variants of package names like >> CSWfoo-dev >> CSWfoodev >> CSWfoodevel >> CSWfoo-devel >> >> I propose to stick to one consistent naming and retire all other ones. >> Specifically I propose to force naming to CSWfoo-devel now that we have >> longer package names. > > Working yesterday on this kind of stuff I remarked that the majority of > our development packages follow this convention and use _devel suffix > (116 of 117 explicitly identified as development packages). So it's too > late to use the _dev suffix without changing a lot of packages > name, even though I would preferred _dev as its shorter, deliver enough > information and its homogeneous with other distributions.
Right, I was more focussing on the package name, where the old "standard" was sort of CSWfoodevel, but IMHO should be changed to be CSWfoo-devel. Nonetheless the shorter and more standard -dev would be even better. More opinions? Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
