On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there any new input? If no I suggest getting to a vote. >> (1) CSW*-dev *_dev >> (2) CSW*-devel *_devel >> While the current OpenCSW standard is (2) the solution (2) is short leaving >> more space for package names, is consistent with other packaging projects >> and without loss of meaning.
Reminder for the voting write-up: - a 2-char difference is trivial compared to the size of the current namespace. (32 chars?) - If the goal is "(to converge on standard naming for our development packages", then there are only *6* packages that have to be renamed for _dev -> _devel, for us to then be fully standardized in the "software name" department. This can be done in a relatively short amount of time. In contrast, there are 126 _devel packages that would have to be renamed the other way. It's all very well to say, "renaming a package isnt difficult", but someone would have to actually go out and DO 126 (x2) repackagings. and ideally bring the packages up to date, etc, etc. I'm guessing this would take far far longer. If _dev was chosen, this would effectively make our naming *less* consistent, during the transition period, for possibly a year or more. Compared to a week or two, to go the other direction. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
