Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add gambc.

[Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:30:31PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Where is this documented?  I looked for it in the "Packaging Guidelines"
> section of our manual, and also the subsection "Package Naming", and
> couldn't find it.  Anyway, even if such a guideline were documented, I
> would oppose it as a general rule.

What I meant is the following paragraph, which is indeed ambiguous:

"Both are usually the same and correspond to the lowercase conversion of
the project name chosen upstream, with underscores replaced with
hyphens.  For instance, GNUnet is available as @code{gnunet}, and
SDL_net as @code{sdl-net}."

The "upstream project name" is not clearly defined. I wrote this paragraph
quite some time ago. Normally, I understood the "upstream project name"
as the tarball name; usually, both are the same so there is no problem.
The idea was to have a mainly mechanical process to avoid per-package
discussions. So in general, I think one _can_ choose the tarball name,
but if it is too weird, that may not be a good idea.

For the package in question, it is referred to everywhere on its homepage
   http://dynamo.iro.umontreal.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
as "Gambit". For instance at the bottom: "Gambit is Copyright ...".

In the middle, it speaks of "Gambit-C", as in
"Gambit-C is a version of the programming system ...".
There does not seem to be any other version, though, so in practice,
"Gambit" and "Gambit-C" appear to be synonyms.

All in all, I think that all three package names "gambc", "gambit" and
"gambit-c" are defendable. We may follow the path of lowest resistance
and keep the name as it is now.

Andreas