From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:22:26 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 13/25] package/Config.in: explain that lua package names should start with lua In-Reply-To: References: <20170223170047.24417-1-arnout@mind.be> <20170223170047.24417-14-arnout@mind.be> <20170302225033.4c38fbab@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20170302232226.7566b105@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:19:50 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > The problem is that we want to use upstream names. The upstream name of > luaposix is luaposix. We certainly don't want to change that into lua-posix, and > making it lua-luaposix would be weird as well. Note that Debian does call it > lua-posix. So to use the lua-posix package, you have to do 'require "luaposix"', > which makes little sense IMHO. > > For me, the important thing is that I can see in the package directory which > packages are lua-related. I'm not really bothered with seeing a mix of lua-foo > and luabar. > > Perl is different because module names (almost?) never start with Perl. Python > is different because package names sometimes are like pyfoo, but never > python-foo, and we have indeed chosen to make it python-pyfoo. > > If people think it would be better for consistency to have lua-luafoo, I can > live with that (just 3 letters more). But do keep in mind that we have already > forsaken consistency because of the historical discrepancy. Fair enough, but then I'd like that the rule be: * If the upstream package name is luafoo, then it should be luafoo in Buildroot. * If the upstream package name is foo, then it should be lua-foo in Buildroot. Does that sound OK? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com