From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zoltan Gyarmati Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:26:41 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] grantlee: new package In-Reply-To: <5090E699.5070903@mind.be> References: <508EFA6D.7000404@gmail.com> <50906999.9000002@mind.be> <5090E5F4.6040903@gmail.com> <5090E699.5070903@mind.be> Message-ID: <5090FCE1.2020100@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 10/31/2012 09:51 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 10/31/12 09:48, Zoltan Gyarmati wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thx for the detailed comments, i'll resend it. And as i realized in >> the debian/ubuntu repos the package called libgrantlee, so maybe it >> would be better to call it so also in buildroot, as it's more >> logical name for a library :) What do you think? > > In buildroot, we prefer to use the upstream name. > > In Debian/Fedora distros, they split packages into a lib- and a bin- > package (and additional -dev and -dbg packages). For grantlee, > there is no bin-, so you don't get a plain grantlee package. > > In buildroot, we don't split the packages (sometimes there are > sub-options to disable the binaries). Therefore, there is no reason > to change the name. > > Regards, Arnout > Hi, ok, i see. Is there any policy/standards document or wikipage somewhere which summarizes this kind of practices? I couldn't find it so far. What i found is mostly technical kind of infos. (which is extremly useful of course :) best regards Zoltan Gyarmati