[POLICY] Binary vs source package names

[Thiemo Seufer]

Liam Healy wrote:
> I don't have any Debian packages, but I don't like this.
> I've come to dislike the "cl-" prefix for anything, because it
> implies that the language in which the software is written in is the
> most important thing.  I don't see "c-" "perl-" etc. for other
> languages, I don't see why lisp should be any different.

I agree. Furthermore, changing package names without good technical
reasons is gratuitous and only adds trouble for existing users.
(Following the upstream default might be a strong enough argument
to change it, as this reduces long-term confusion.)

[snip]
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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).

The distinction beween applications and libraries is rather weak in CL.
Is there a good reason to follow the limitations of lesser languages? :-)


Thiemo