Postgresql namespace

[Matthias Runge]

On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?=<fedora-list at gunduz.org>  writes:
>>> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
>>>>
>>>> Should we have:
>>>> postgresql-pgpool-II
>>>> postgresql-orafce
>>>>
>>>> or just:
>>>> pgpool-II
>>>> orafce
>>>>
>>>> Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
>>>> of same namespace.
>>
>>> Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
>>> and they are just useless.
>>
>> FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to
>> better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent
>> for Devrim's position.
>>
>> 			regards, tom lane
>
>> It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the
>> upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier?
>
>
> If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as
> postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian.
>
> OpenSuse and Mandriva don't seem to ship orafce.
>
>
>

Thinking of more general packages, e.g a java binding for postgresql, I 
would prefer names like postgresql-java (or similar) to be able to 
differentiate from mysql-java, ingres-java (given, those packages do 
exist). To be conformant to this naming scheme, other packages, that do 
only exist e.g. for postgresql, should IMHO be named postgresql-something.

Even a search on packages gets you faster to results just by browsing 
package names (yes, I know yum is pretty smart and does not need that.)

Cheers,
Matthias