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

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

(Resending. Now I forgot to group reply :)

On 23 June 2007 at 22:32, Manuel Prinz wrote:
| 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:

Comparisons carry only some weight as not all packages are perfect :)

| > 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

You mean just like the name libopenmpi1 which I suggested nineteen lines above? ;-)

| > and openmpi1-dev?

AFAIK the -dev packages are numbered only if they are tied to an API and/or
you offer several variants. 

So openmpi-dev or libopenmpi-dev should do.

I clearly prefer lib$foo so I may make this change. And hence libopenmpi1 and
libopenmpi-dev as well as libopenmpi-dbg.

| > > 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.

But openmpi-mpidoc is redundant. Will rename to openmpi-doc which is more standard.
 
| > 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?

Why do we need wishlist bugs?

Enjoy your vacation.

Dirk

-- 
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. 
                                                  -- Thomas A. Edison