minimal requirements for subpackage named common

[Jan Chaloupka]

On 05/01/2015 01:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 15:15 +0200, Jan Chaloupka wrote:
>
>> Is there a minimum requirement what should a common package provide
>> or
>> is it just arbitrary?
> There's no real requirement. Personally 'common' is the name I'd most
> likely expect, with one proviso; I kinda expect a package named
> 'common' to be basically useless on its own, and exist *solely* for
> this purpose (to provide resources shared between two other packages).
> If the shared package contains enough stuff to actually be useful in
> some way on its own, I'd probably expect it to have another name, like
> 'core'.

Adam, thanks for sharing. I like this idea.