[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] [Fwd: Re: Package names]

[Manuel Prinz]

This one should have gone to the list as well... :(

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Von: Manuel Prinz <debian at pinguinkiste.de>
> An: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Package names
> Datum: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:26:51 +0100
> 
> Am Samstag, den 23.06.2007, 11:55 -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> > i)  Should the lib package be called 
> > 	openmpi-libs0			(current setting)
> >     or
> > 	libopenmpi1			(lib prefix, major at end)
> >     or something else?
> >     Same for the -dev package:
> > 	libopenmpi-dev
> 
> For comparison:
> MPICH:   libmpich1.0c2, libmpich1.0-dev
> LAM/MPI: lam4c2,        lam4-dev
> 
> The Debian Policy states (chapter 8):
> > The run-time shared library needs to be placed in a package whose name
> > changes whenever the shared object version changes.1 The most common
> > mechanism is to place it in apackage called librarynamesoversion,
> > where soversion is the version number in the soname of the shared
> > library2 .
> 
> Since the current OpenMPI version is 1.2.x, shouldn't we go with
> libopenmpi1 and openmpi1-dev?
> 
> > ii) Should the doc package be
> > 	openmpi-mpidoc
> >     or the somewhat simpler
> > 	openmpi-doc
> 
> MPICH installs the MPI documentation as "mpi-doc" which is rather
> unfortunate IMHO. LAM/MPI uses lam-mpidoc.
> 
> The openmpi-mpidoc package contains the documentation of the actual
> implementation. The runtime documentation is shipped in openmpi-bin.
> openmpi-mpidoc would go along with LAM. I'd like to see a uniform naming
> scheme, whether it's *-mpidoc or *-doc. (I personally prefer the later
> one.) Should we file wishlist bugs for those?
> 
> Best regard
> Manuel
> 
> (Final email from me until July. This time for real.)