[arch-general] package name foo vs libfoo (eg. clutter vs libclutter)

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

 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