On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:34:13 +0200
Paul Onyschuk <blink_at_bojary.koba.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:42:25 +0200
> Natanael Copa <ncopa_at_alpinelinux.org> wrote:
> > Other comments?
> What naming for those packages you suggest? For C++ related things
> using "pp" is pretty obvious (e.g. libgc++ -> libgcpp). And simple
> "+" should be changed to plus (e.g. gtk+ -> gtkplus)?
What does in mean in practice. Good point.
I'm looking to what others do. Seems like debian/ubuntu allows + in the
name. Fedora too (so i assume all rpm based allows it).
The approx list is (-dev and -doc excluded):
renaming g++ -> gpp will not work since there are another gpp
libstdcpp is just ugly libstdcplusplus too.
gtk+ -> gtk works
gtk+2.0 -> gtk2 works
gtk+3.0 -> gtk3 works
imagemagick-c++ -> imagemagic-cpp might work
libsigcpp -> libsigcpp is ugly libsigcplusplus too.
tolua++ -> toluapp wont work. toluaplusplus is even worse.
uclibc++ can be removed.
hum... maybe it was not a good idea after all?
> +1 (my vote probably doesn't count anyway, I'm just sharing my
> opinion). Packages with wird naming aren't popular, so it should be
> easy to fix and maintain.
Things like libstdc++ and imagemagick-c++ makes more sense than the
Unless someone comes up with some good alternative to the above list I
think we'll just keep it as it is and will have to urlencode when
How about we allow + and disallow the others?
The will something like this work:
Received on Thu Jul 07 2011 - 08:21:00 UTC