naming scheme

Gergely Nagy algernon at
Mon Jun 10 10:41:00 UTC 2013

Wolodja Wentland <debian at> writes:

> 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.

I'd suffix source package names with -clojure, keep libFOO-clojure for
the binaries that do build libraries, and FOO-clojure for clojure

But I have no strong opinion, either.


More information about the Pkg-clojure-maintainers mailing list