From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 6ChQAxRo3l6aegAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:32:20 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id iEe5OhNo3l6XTgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:32:19 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96409940308 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 16:32:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33258 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiKh8-0007CS-8a for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:32:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiKIj-0003qU-IK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:07:05 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1]:41023) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiKIi-0000LH-6x for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:07:05 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49gdRl1jrdz1rv9g; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:06:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49gdRk6lCCz1sPMZ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:06:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NEEQk8ru0AUw; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:06:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermia.goebel-consult.de (ppp-188-174-51-235.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.51.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:06:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lenashee.goebel-consult.de (lenashee.fritz.box [192.168.110.28]) by hermia.goebel-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD114601D4; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:08:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Hartmut Goebel Subject: Advice on package naming (was: [PATCH 0/5] Add pEp (pretty Easy privacy)) To: Guix-devel , 41490@debbugs.gnu.org References: Organization: crazy-compilers.com Message-ID: <663e709a-31ed-54ef-faa3-67fea9bf5b6e@crazy-compilers.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:06:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: none client-ip=2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1; envelope-from=h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com; helo=mail-out.m-online.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/08 12:06:59 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: e3PaIx6xApZp Hi Guix, I'm still seeking advice on how to name these packages, since the original packages have quiet uncommon names. Shall I keep the names I'm currently using, or are there any other suggestions? Current names: pep-engine libpepadapter. python-pep-adapter java-pep-adapter Am 23.05.20 um 20:48 schrieb Hartmut Goebel: > How shall we name the packages here? > I'd appreciate feedback to the package names, since the original packages have > quiet uncommon names: > > - pEpEngine -> pep-engine (main library) > - libpEpAdapter -> intermediate layer library > - pEpPythonAdapter -> python-pep-adapter > - pEpJNIAdapter -> java-pep-adapter > > The project as other packages like these: > - pEpQtAdapter > - pEpJSONServerAdapter > - pEpObjCAdapter > > In Arch Linux AUR packages are named pep-engine, libpep-adapter, > python-pep-adapter, pep-jni-adapter, pep-qt-adapter. -- Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |