[POLICY] Binary vs source package names

Luca Capello luca at pca.it
Sat Jun 7 15:29:46 UTC 2008


Hi all!

While trying to solve all the CL bugs [1], I noticed that we should
define a clear policy about package names WRT the cl- prefix.  This will
be then part of the Common Lisp packaging policy I dreamt of [2].

My proposal is that "libraries" should have the cl- prefix at least for
the binary package names, since this is very similar to the lib*
packages.  With "library" I mean all those software which is designed to
be used by other packages and not as a stand-alone program.  E.g.,
arnesi [3] or cl-irc [4].

However, binary package names for software which is intended as a
stand-alone program should not be prefixed by cl- if they don't already
have it.  Whenever is possible, the source package name should reflect
the upstream one, thus without the cl- prefix if upstream doesn't have
it.  This is indeed the case for most of the software in this group
(e.g. SBCL [5] or StumpWM [6]), but not for all (e.g. Hunchentoot [7]
binary package is called cl-hunchentoot in Debian).

If no one disagrees, I'll try to correct the packages I find starting
From one week from now.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=maint&data=pkg-common-lisp-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org&archive=no&version=&dist=unstable
[2] http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/2007-October/002882.html
[3] http://common-lisp.net/project/bese/arnesi.html
[4] http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-irc/
[5] http://www.sbcl.org
[6] http://www.nongnu.org/stumpwm/
[7] http://weitz.de/hunchentoot/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20080607/f297492a/attachment.pgp 


More information about the pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list