naming scheme

[Wolodja Wentland]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 20:06 +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 01:22:29PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Some of the packages are:
> > 
> >    libfoo-clojure   ( like Perl )
> > 
> > I would, however, prefer the Python-style:
> > 
> >    clojure-foo
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I have no strong opinions on that but always liked the Perl style
> since it was easy to find libraries ("^lib.+-clojure$"). To me,
> libclj-time-clojure does not look weirder than clojure-clj-time. ;)
> 
> And how about Leiningen plugins, then? "leiningen-plugin-foo" or
> "clojure-lein-foo"?

The reason for libFOO-clojure is that pkg-java uses that scheme and I still
think that the java team is the one we are most closely related to. That
scheme is, naturally, wrong for applications or anything that is *not* a
library.

Given that we have some libFOO-clojure packages in the archive already I don't
think we can switch anymore without some problems. OTOH if we were to switch
we should rather do it now than later.

Paul mentioned somewhere else that he would like to suffix source package
names with -clojure and I am in favour of that.
-- 
Wolodja <debian at babilen5.org>

4096R/CAF14EFC
081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-clojure-maintainers/attachments/20130609/070ad463/attachment.pgp>