I'd prefer stability of names to consistency of names. Many firms or projects no longer have the engineer who set up their happily working dependencies. #2 is the more persuasive argument, but it is only a recommendation.
Bill. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: > In Fedora we have the following bindings packages: > > * python-qpid - pure Python bindings > * python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python > * perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl > * rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby > > Two issues were brought up with this: > > 1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same > naming convention as Ruby and Python. > 2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name [1]. > > This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages > there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's > only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package. > > To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd > like to do the following: > > * rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging > * rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging > * rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging > > In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora, > to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition > period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a > more consistent and discoverable state. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators > > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > >
