From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add gambc. Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:09:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20150217190926.GA27623@debian.math.u-bordeaux1.fr> References: <87iof1d794.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87y4nx8icy.fsf@netris.org> <20150217091404.GA10723@debian.math.u-bordeaux1.fr> <87a90cdh7v.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <20150217092950.GA11593@debian.math.u-bordeaux1.fr> <87d2588k6w.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNnX7-0004VU-Bh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:10:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNnX3-0006tU-7V for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:10:09 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:54773) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNnX2-0006r7-VH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:10:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d2588k6w.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org 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