Hi Phil, Am 15.02.2011 um 16:13 schrieb Philip Brown: > 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.
Personally I maintain 45 of these and all packages with devel stuff in it needs to be touched anyway due to the library splitting. Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
