DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:from:to:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=QOTUERjLU96WRY7zj5TKOp4xhuzNrom5JB4ScoSNsor01C/IPux0fWR8gr0EGpbfyo
         8Ip9CtwaONGht75tTFAwzjlwJXRJ4i3NGJYepd5oO7rcRaZuZobSvbZ2LWxyHqJpHami
         tuTfmb3SGdyRrWK+vs4j61nVSU6KCWjQufPIY=
Subject: [alpine-devel] naming lua packages
From: Natanael Copa <natanael.copa@gmail.com>
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:25:41 +0200
Message-Id: <1245137141.32397.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Been thinking abit on the lua package modules naming. We have all perl
modules prefixed with perl- (for example perl-xml-simple) and all php
modules prefixed with php- (for example php-mysql).

So I was wondering if we maybe should rename all lua packages to be
prefixed with lua-. that is instead of luasocket we call it lua-socket,
instead of json4lua we call it lua-json. Instead of 'md5' we call it
lua-md5.

This makes it easy to search for lua modules:

apk search lua-*

Will let you find things like lua-processcall and lua-bitlib. It is not
that obvious that 'bitlib' is a lua library.

drawback is that names does not correspond with upstream names.

I suppose we will still keep an empty meta package with old name for
compatibility.

we let things be as they are or we change naming standard for lua
packages? opinions?

-nc




---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---