On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and it starts to scrape the question of a lot of package splitting with -devel packages. I think it would be safe in saying that that in general Arch does not do -devel packages, and it would be silly to start devel packages our here on the ocaml front!
But this sounds good, I think I that finding some solid ground on this little grey area will be the last part to the standard, I think I will ask Richard Jones what he thinks (although he will give me some crap about arch not splitting devel packages :) )
-Tom
I wasn't actually suggesting that we split the packages (whence the inclusion of "Perhaps the ideal..."). I was just considering whether there would be any advantages to that approach. The advent of split packages gives it a certain allure, and the arguments for and against it are both based on KISS principles.
We could also go the simple route and say that all packages that provide libraries|modules for general use should include the prefix in the name, and if they provide an application as well then they should "provide" the application name in the PKGBUILD, i.e. the pkgname without the prefix in most if not all cases.
Vice versa would work too, but the prefixed name subsumes the unprefixed name and would thus result in a hit when searching for either, which I prefer.
Regards, Xyne
Heh, if anything I was speaking hypothetically, and yes the advent of split packages does open up a barrage of packaging considerations. With all that said, I think that you are spot on with your description, I will add it to the wiki page later today. -Tom