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

[alírio eyng]

Ludovic Courtès:
>what about multiple-language packages?  I’m thinking of
>‘c+guile-guile’ and ‘c+siod+python-gimp’.
the ideal categorization would be one output for each interface.
so "guile" (scheme), "guile:c", "gimp" (gui), "gimp:c", "gimp:siod",
"gimp:python", "emacs" (gui), "emacs:tui", "emacs:elisp" (to run
"emacs -batch -eval").
e.g. guile:c and emacs:tui are pretty useless for me, so i could not
install them.
it's worth to focus on packages already split: "emacs" (gui+tui+elisp)
and "emacs:no-gui" (tui+elisp), linux-libre, ...

c nomenclature:
packages with c interface currently have nothing, "lib" (prefix or
postfix), "c-", "-c", "4c" or "-headers".
e.g. "readline" "libunistring" "htslib" "c-ares" "json-c" "icu4c"
"mesa-headers" "linux-libre-headers".
and lots of synopses with nothing, "C library for", "C library
providing", "C library to", "implementation in C" or "written in C".

this would be consistent with trisquel:
"libreadline-dev" "libunistring-dev" "libhts-dev" "libc-ares-dev"
"libjson-c-dev" "libicu-dev" "libmesa-dev" (and "libmesa")
"linux-libre-image" (and "linux-libre-libc-dev" or
"linux-libre-headers").

suggestions:
be consistent with other languages:
"c-readline" "c-unistring" "c-hts" "c-ares" "c-json" "c-icu" "c-mesa"
(hide the runtime) "linux-libre" (and "linux-libre:c"; actually the
system would use "linux-libre-old:c" to keep current semantics).
remove this information from synopses (or standardize to all).