-cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

ezzetabi · 2008-10-14 14:31:06

The unstable packages have the name of their relative stable one with added in suffix the concurrent version system installed.
I think it is a bad convention since it mixes implementer choices with the the concept of lastest unstable version.

I think it is better decide a single suffix (e.g., -unstable or -dev) and always use it without difference between the implementer choices of programming.
Moreover it avoids renaming headaches if someone changes program for keeping versions.

No flame wars. I decide nothing. It is only a thought.

Profjim · 2008-10-14 15:18:10

I've seen this discussed before on the forums...

Edit: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25938

Last edited by Profjim (2008-10-14 15:23:02)

mentallaxative · 2008-10-14 15:32:11

Profjim wrote:

I've seen this discussed before on the forums...
Edit: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25938

I found this in the forum search: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25938

It doesn't seem like anything came out of that discussion. I haven't really found the naming convention confusing; it is the large variety of SCMs that is confusing, and that is not going to change anytime soon. The current package naming conventions are unproblematic for me so you'd have to point out exactly where a real problem has cropped up.

ezzetabi · 2008-10-14 16:03:46

Please close the topic then.

Last edited by ezzetabi (2008-10-14 16:11:25)

phrakture · 2008-10-14 17:20:24

The simple fact is: it's up to whoever makes the package to decide. I could name a package openoffice-tacos if I wanted to.

Considering most of these packages are in community/AUR, I'd talk to the TUs about it

Daenyth · 2008-10-15 01:54:15

I think it's fine as it is. Specifically, with -dev, it would cause confusion because every other distro I know of uses -dev to mean a split package, where -dev contains the header files.

EDIT: typo fix. Also, all name changing systems are inherently arbitrary, so we may as well go with the current ones because 1) it's the established way to do things here, and 2) it is the most informative of any other type posted.

Last edited by Daenyth (2008-10-15 01:58:24)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-14 14:31:06

-cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

#2 2008-10-14 15:18:10

Re: -cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

#3 2008-10-14 15:32:11

Re: -cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

#4 2008-10-14 16:03:46

Re: -cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

#5 2008-10-14 17:20:24

Re: -cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

#6 2008-10-15 01:54:15

Re: -cvs, -git, -snv... is really a good naming convention?

Board footer