tgl at redhat.com
Fri Apr 23 20:22:56 UTC 2010
Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de> writes:
> 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.
More often than not, database/language binding packages are already
subject to some other naming convention associated with the language.
For instance, the tcl, perl, and python bindings all are subject to
conventions suggesting that their names ought to start with tcl-, perl-,
python- respectively. So I think we'd be getting into trouble if we try
to establish naming conventions that put the database first.
We could perhaps do things one way for bindings and another way for
packages that are purely internal to the database, but I'm not finding
that to be a compelling idea. I think "name it after the upstream
project" is a good enough rule.
regards, tom lane
More information about the devel