[aur-general] Structure and naming of packages

Mateusz Loskot mateusz at loskot.net
Thu Jun 14 21:16:32 EDT 2012

On 15 June 2012 01:49, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh at 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 :)


Best regards,
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

More information about the aur-general mailing list