[pacman-dev] libalpm or libpacman?

Aurelien Foret 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 
Management" library.

To say it all, I would prefer to have the library name connected with 
Arch Linux.
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 mailing list