[arch-general] package name foo vs libfoo (eg. clutter vs libclutter)
Andre "Osku" Schmidt
andre.osku.schmidt at googlemail.com
Wed Aug 4 06:09:58 EDT 2010
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 August 2010 03:55, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh at lutzhaase.com> wrote:
>> On 03.08.2010 23:21, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>>> 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.
More information about the arch-general