[arch-general] package name foo vs libfoo (eg. clutter vs libclutter)
Hello, this may be a minor issue, but it's bugging me so much that i had to write it here. and please link me to any previous discussion if this was asked before, i was kinda lazy to really search and http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards didn't mention anything about it. is there any rule on how to name packages ? lets take clutter as an example. it's named "clutter" everywhere in upstream, git, tarball, docs etc. but, it only builds libraries, and names those libclutter* (and really is only usable as library) so why are these (or only this?) packages named foo and not libfoo ? cheers .andre ps. im here to fix, not flame :)
On 03.08.2010 23:21, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
this may be a minor issue, but it's bugging me so much that i had to write it here. and please link me to any previous discussion if this was asked before, i was kinda lazy to really search and http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards didn't mention anything about it.
is there any rule on how to name packages ?
lets take clutter as an example. it's named "clutter" everywhere in upstream, git, tarball, docs etc. but, it only builds libraries, and names those libclutter* (and really is only usable as library)
so why are these (or only this?) packages named foo and not libfoo ?
cheers .andre
ps. im here to fix, not flame :)
Arch, unlike other distros, names packages after what upstream names their software. Thus, clutter is named clutter because upstream calls it that. libinfinity is named libinfinity because upstream calls it that. Prepending "lib" to everything also seems silly to me. Some lib packages might not purely be libs. For instance, one of my packages, ogre, is mainly a lib for 3D development but it has a lot of stuff (media, docs, samples, tutorials) that regular libs do not. What should it be called in the "lib" scheme? libogre (Debian does that) or just ogre? sdkogre perhaps? If we just name it ogre, we will have no problems at all and people will easily be able to find the package they are searching by just following the name upstream gave to their stuff. This also goes hand in hand with the philosophy of living close to upstream. -- Sven-Hendrik
On 4 August 2010 03:55, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 03.08.2010 23:21, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
this may be a minor issue, but it's bugging me so much that i had to write it here. and please link me to any previous discussion if this was asked before, i was kinda lazy to really search and http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards didn't mention anything about it.
is there any rule on how to name packages ?
lets take clutter as an example. it's named "clutter" everywhere in upstream, git, tarball, docs etc. but, it only builds libraries, and names those libclutter* (and really is only usable as library)
so why are these (or only this?) packages named foo and not libfoo ?
cheers .andre
ps. im here to fix, not flame :)
Arch, unlike other distros, names packages after what upstream names their software. Thus, clutter is named clutter because upstream calls it that. libinfinity is named libinfinity because upstream calls it that.
Prepending "lib" to everything also seems silly to me. Some lib packages might not purely be libs. For instance, one of my packages, ogre, is mainly a lib for 3D development but it has a lot of stuff (media, docs, samples, tutorials) that regular libs do not. What should it be called in the "lib" scheme? libogre (Debian does that) or just ogre? sdkogre perhaps? If we just name it ogre, we will have no problems at all and people will easily be able to find the package they are searching by just following the name upstream gave to their stuff.
This also goes hand in hand with the philosophy of living close to upstream.
My suggestion in order of priority: - Upstream project name * - Upstream tarball name * For some libraries, their project name is just "foo". In that case, if I see that the resulting package would contain nothing the end-user would run/use (as a binary/executable), then I name it "libfoo" (often the tarball name). You can always approach upstream with regards to naming a distributed package of their software. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 August 2010 03:55, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 03.08.2010 23:21, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
this may be a minor issue, but it's bugging me so much that i had to write it here. and please link me to any previous discussion if this was asked before, i was kinda lazy to really search and http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards didn't mention anything about it.
is there any rule on how to name packages ?
lets take clutter as an example. it's named "clutter" everywhere in upstream, git, tarball, docs etc. but, it only builds libraries, and names those libclutter* (and really is only usable as library)
so why are these (or only this?) packages named foo and not libfoo ?
cheers .andre
ps. im here to fix, not flame :)
Arch, unlike other distros, names packages after what upstream names their software. Thus, clutter is named clutter because upstream calls it that. libinfinity is named libinfinity because upstream calls it that.
Prepending "lib" to everything also seems silly to me. Some lib packages might not purely be libs. For instance, one of my packages, ogre, is mainly a lib for 3D development but it has a lot of stuff (media, docs, samples, tutorials) that regular libs do not. What should it be called in the "lib" scheme? libogre (Debian does that) or just ogre? sdkogre perhaps? If we just name it ogre, we will have no problems at all and people will easily be able to find the package they are searching by just following the name upstream gave to their stuff.
This also goes hand in hand with the philosophy of living close to upstream.
My suggestion in order of priority:
- Upstream project name * - Upstream tarball name
* For some libraries, their project name is just "foo". In that case, if I see that the resulting package would contain nothing the end-user would run/use (as a binary/executable), then I name it "libfoo" (often the tarball name).
You can always approach upstream with regards to naming a distributed package of their software.
roger. thought it would be upstream business, just wanted to confirm.
participants (3)
-
Andre "Osku" Schmidt
-
Ray Rashif
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase