On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:02 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:32 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> I would go for: ladspa-plugins-NAME
Yes, I think that's better.
> What if the name of the package already contains "plugins"?
Then one could argue that the string "plugins" is simply moved to a
Arguably, ladspa-NAME could also be acceptable and it would nicely take
care of the special case you mentioned.
I'd like to push the existing Planet CCRMA plugin collections to extras
so we should agree on naming before I get started (I'd prefer to switch
names only once - I would have to include proper obsoletes/provides so
that the extra packages have a clean upgrade path for current Planet
I currently have (at Planet CCRMA):
cmt -> ladspa-plugins-cmt
mcp-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-mcp
rev-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-rev
vco-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-vco
fil-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-fil
amb-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-amb
blop -> ladspa-plugins-blop
tap-plugins -> laspa-plugins-tap
caps -> ladspa-plugins-caps
pvoc -> ladspa-plugins-pvoc
(and swh which is already in extras)
There are a lot of "original package names" that are already
NAME-plugins, so maybe it would be better to go with the crowd and agree
where NAME includes plugins or not depending on the original name.
Or even better:
where you add "plugins" if it is not already there.
This last one does sound better to my ears.