On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Chris Brannon <cmbrannon79@gmail.com> wrote:
Xyne wrote:
General question: If someone were willing to follow through with it, would it be better to enforce the naming guidelines and modify the affected packages, or does it simply not matter? It seems unfortunate that "non-standard" names can get locked in this way.
In this case, there are only 3 prosody packages between 2 maintainers.
In this specific case, the name luaexpat seems to be the correct one, although it is aesthetically unappealing. It is the name of the source tarball and the tree contained therein. Also, the project's URL uses that name (though the page is temporarily inaccessible). I think I made the right choice earlier.
In the general case, if the package was named incorrectly, it is probably good to contact the maintainers of packages that depend on it.
Regards, -- Chris
I agree with both of you here, I think in this special case Chris took good decision which one was to delete because the 'luaexpat' package that's the dependencies of more packages in AUR, but Xavier's right too in that regard so that it would be nice thinking of Packaging Standards extension (if it's not involved until now) with recommended/suggested package name in these situation Just see vim-*, php-*, emacs-*, xemacs-* from the extra/community repository as samples. I think the unity here too would be a good step. Best Regards, Laszlo Papp