Re: Proposal: Prefix language-name for language library packages

[Leo Famulari]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:56:15PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hartmut Goebel <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
> > I propose to generalizing the specification [1,2] as we already have for
> > Perl, Python and Java for most programming languages. In short:
> >
> > Package names should be prefixed with the name of the language and if
> > the package name already contains the name of the language, it gets
> > removed there.
> >
> > I quickly scanned the current package definitions and found:
> >
> > guile: 2 package to change
> > haskell: ca. 2 package to be changed
> > julia: 0
> > d (lcd.xscm): 0
> > nqc (lego.scm): 0 --> prefix "lego-"? OTOH this is a commercial brand
> > lua: 0
> > m4: 0
> > ocaml: 1
> > ruby: 0
> > r (statistics.scm): 0
> > scheme: 1 or 2
> 
> What do you mean by “scheme”?  Scheme packages are usually not
> interchangeable among Scheme implementations, so we’d have
> guile != racket != MIT Scheme, etc.
> 
> > smalltalk: 0
> > tcl: 0
> 
> I’m all for it, especially given that this is pretty much the status
> quo.  :-)
> 
> So, patches welcome for the 5-or-so packages above.
> 
> A common exception to the rule is packages that offer a CLI/GUI that is
> a common entry point to the package–e.g., Guix, Unison, patches, Pius,
> Xmonad, Awesome.  IOW, the rule would apply to libraries only.

Yes, it makes sense for libraries that are "tied" to their language. Of
course:

> There may be other cases where it’d be useful to make exceptions.