Hi all! While trying to solve all the CL bugs [1], I noticed that we should define a clear policy about package names WRT the cl- prefix. This will be then part of the Common Lisp packaging policy I dreamt of [2].
My proposal is that "libraries" should have the cl- prefix at least for the binary package names, since this is very similar to the lib* packages. With "library" I mean all those software which is designed to be used by other packages and not as a stand-alone program. E.g., arnesi [3] or cl-irc [4]. However, binary package names for software which is intended as a stand-alone program should not be prefixed by cl- if they don't already have it. Whenever is possible, the source package name should reflect the upstream one, thus without the cl- prefix if upstream doesn't have it. This is indeed the case for most of the software in this group (e.g. SBCL [5] or StumpWM [6]), but not for all (e.g. Hunchentoot [7] binary package is called cl-hunchentoot in Debian). If no one disagrees, I'll try to correct the packages I find starting From one week from now. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=maint&data=pkg-common-lisp-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org&archive=no&version=&dist=unstable [2] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/2007-October/002882.html [3] http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/arnesi.html [4] http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-irc/ [5] http://www.sbcl.org [6] http://www.nongnu.org/stumpwm/ [7] http://weitz.de/hunchentoot/
pgpVMcK6Iid74.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
