[pacman-dev] libalpm or libpacman?
aurelien at archlinux.org
Mon Jan 9 16:22:08 EST 2006
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> I'm wondering if "Arch Linux Package Management" is the best name for
> the new package library. I'm mainly concerned for relatively big
> utilizers - currently only Frugalware - but also people such as LFS
> users who seek a nice package management utility. (Of course all of them
> should be using Arch as we all know it's superior! ;-))
> libpacman doesn't sound too good, but any less flavored name should do
> the trick. I guess it all boils down to whether pacman is "a package
> manager" or "the Arch Linux package manager" - so, what is it? :-)
Well, pacman is a "package manager", based on the "Arch Linux Package
To say it all, I would prefer to have the library name connected with
Althought it won't promote Arch Linux around the world, it will somehow
be more rewarding for the Arch Linux folks.
Indeed, even if a package manager linked with this library comes to be
used with another distro, people will know where the tool they're using
is coming from.
Let's consider "rpm". It stands for "RedHat Package Manager", it is used
by many distributions, but people haven't forget where it comes from. If
it has been named "apm" (A Packager Manager), would there be a soul on
earth knowing something about its roots?
Just some thoughts, and the reason why I choosed this name in the first
Nothing definitive, even if, as pointed out by VMiklos, it would turn
the CVS repository upside-down :)
More information about the pacman-dev