X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from psyche.piasta.pl (psyche.piasta.pl [83.175.144.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367F315996E6 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.20.128] (helo=desant) by psyche.piasta.pl with esmtpa (Pocztex KoBa) (envelope-from ) id 1QeYnR-0004mn-1Q for alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:34:09 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:34:13 +0200 From: Paul Onyschuk To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] [RFC] package name policy change Message-Id: <20110706223413.b0e851f9.blink@bojary.koba.pl> In-Reply-To: <20110706204225.148b1b52@alpinelinux.org> References: <20110706204225.148b1b52@alpinelinux.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Invalid-HELO: HELO is no FQDN (contains no dot) (See RFC2821 4.1.1.1) X-Sender-Verify: SUCCEEDED (sender exists & accepts mail) X-Date: 2011-07-06 22:34:09 On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:42:25 +0200 Natanael Copa 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)? +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. -- Paul Onyschuk --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---