On 15 June 2012 01:49, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 06/15/2012 02:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
(I'm not sure if this post belongs here or perhaps to aur-dev, sorry for confusion.)
Is there any convention regarding structure and naming of packages? I have a project implemented in C, which consist of a library and collection of utilities. In Debian world, this project is split across three packages: abc0 - library abc-bin - utilities abc-devel - headers and files for developers
I'd like to create a package for Arch. How should I structure?
Also, I'd like to have two variants of packages: one for latest stable release and one for development upstream hosted in SVN. Shall I use -svn suffix for the latter?
I have checked the Wiki of ABS, Package Development category, etc. and I haven't found answer to my questions. Any pointers?
First of all, Debian would call it libabc0 etc.
Yes, you're right.
Then, name it exactly what upstream calls it. If upstream calls the lib liblol, name it that. If they call it just lol, call it that. If you make a svn variant, call it lol-svn.
Great, I like the simplicity.
If you are unsure what upstream calls it because they are inconsistent, make an educated guess judging by the tarball name or something.
OK, it makes sense.
Also, don't split packages like Debian does. In your case, it would just be abc in Arch.
I really appreciate how Arch deals with it in straightforward and natural manner :) Thanks! Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net