Liam Healy wrote: > I don't have any Debian packages, but I don't like this. > I've come to dislike the "cl-" prefix for anything, because it > implies that the language in which the software is written in is the > most important thing. I don't see "c-" "perl-" etc. for other > languages, I don't see why lisp should be any different.
I agree. Furthermore, changing package names without good technical reasons is gratuitous and only adds trouble for existing users. (Following the upstream default might be a strong enough argument to change it, as this reduces long-term confusion.) [snip] > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > 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). The distinction beween applications and libraries is rather weak in CL. Is there a good reason to follow the limitations of lesser languages? :-) Thiemo _______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
