[pacman-dev] libalpm or libpacman?

[Mark Rosenstand]

On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 22:22 +0100, Aurelien Foret wrote:
> Well, pacman is a "package manager", based on the "Arch Linux Package 
> Management" library.

Sure, it's the name of the library we're discussing. And whether that
library is a product of Arch Linux or if Arch Linux is a consumer of
that 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.

I see your point and agree completely. Like OpenSS{H,L} :-)

> 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?

This actually do kind of sucks with RPM being part of the LSB. It shows
a good example of a tool that used to be distro specific, no longer are,
but still carry a distro specific name.

> Nothing definitive, even if, as pointed out by VMiklos, it would turn 
> the CVS repository upside-down :)

Yeah, you ought to love CVS! The superior VCS (of 1988) ;-)

BTW: I started reading the 2.x code and almost wet myself when reading
pacman.c, the new code after the library split-up is beautiful. Rock on!

-- 
Mark Rosenstand           ,;-,  ,oOQ
Arch Linux               /_,K`  (§§)
Department of Footware   `   `   `G