[aur-general] Request: Removal of "java-gstreamer"
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 16:57:11 EDT 2009
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Andrei Thorp<garoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Laurie Clark-Michalek's message of Tue Jun 23 16:45:04 -0400 2009:
>> 2009/6/23 Andrei Thorp <garoth at gmail.com>:
>> > Excerpts from Vitaliy Berdinskikh's message of Tue Jun 23 16:06:28 -0400 2009:
>> >> В Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:39:55 +0200
>> >> Andrea Scarpino <andrea at archlinux.org> пишет:
>> >> > On 23/06/2009, Vitaliy Berdinskikh <skipper13 at root.ua> wrote:
>> >> > > The original name is gstreamer-java
>> >> > But we have the policies, so if you want to package a project respect
>> >> > ours policies.
>> >> > please adopt java-gstreamer; after this, someone will delete
>> >> > gstreamer-java
>> >> >
>> >> "
>> >> * If a Java library has a generic name, the package name should be
>> >> prepended with the title java- to help distinguish it from other
>> >> libraries. This is not necessary with uniquely named packages (like
>> >> JUnit), end-user programs (like Eclipse), or libraries that can be
>> >> uniquely described with another prefix (like
>> >> jakarta-commons-collections or apache-ant).
>> > I'd say that gstreamer-java is a generically named library, so it should
>> > probably be java-gstreamer.
>> > Thanks for clearing it up.
>> Why not just rename it java-gstreamer-java? That way we can respect
>> the archlinux policies, and also keep the origal name for anyone
>> trying to find it on the aur.
> I chuckled. I assume this isn't a serious suggestion. Though it would
> solve it, it's not really a "solution".
> I'm think I agree with Andrea still.
Just a note - I feel that it's always preferable to stick with
upstream names. If it becomes too generic, then we can tack on some
nomenclature. Case in point: feedparser. WTF is that? Oh it's
These bindings are named well enough for my tastes in the original
More information about the aur-general