From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Lukichev Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:08:07 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] openpgm: new package In-Reply-To: <20130211151429.682ea550@skate> References: <1360585826-17996-1-git-send-email-alexander.lukichev@gmail.com> <20130211134547.02bedae4@skate> <5118EF9A.1030106@gmail.com> <20130211151429.682ea550@skate> Message-ID: <511A1487.2060507@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi, Thomas, All! On 02/11/2013 04:14 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >>> unclear if we should choose libpgm or openpgm. Does the openpgm >>> projects delivers something else than libpgm? >> Not as far as I know. Well, actually yes. It's mostly libpgm but there are also bindings for Perl and GStreamer. > Then maybe we want to call the package libpgm ? It is referenced from ZeroMQ (in everything, including scripts and documentation) as OpenPGM. I don't know about other packages using it, though. It is also referenced from inside the package itself (the subdir is openpgm/pgm/ etc). It seems that only the archive and installed library files have libpgm in their names: everything else is named openpgm. So, I'll do what you and the community advise but I'd rather call it "OpenPGM implementation of libpgm". -- Best regards, Alexander Lukichev