Vote - development package naming

Arguments for CSW*-devel, *_devel

There is little difference qualitatively between "devel", and "dev". A 2-char difference is trivial

Other factors that should be considered, are existing standards, and effort involved to go in either direction. "devel" is in essence, our de facto standard, and has been for some years now. Surprising our users by reversing defacto standards is usually not a good thing.

Because of that, there are only 6 "dev" named packages. If the goal for the new naming standard is "[to converge on standard naming for our development packages]", then speed of convergence to a standard is useful to consider. It should take only a matter of days, to convert the 6 packages to "devel".

In contrast, it will take vastly more effort, and most likely months of real time, to convert the existing 120+ "devel" packages, to "dev" packages. During that time, our naming will actually become LESS consistent than it is now (120 vs 6), until the convergence work is completed

Arguments for CSW*-dev, *_dev

This choice:

  • Leaves 7% more space for package names (the maximum length being 29 characters)
  • Is consistent with other packaging projects, e.g. Debian and Ubuntu
  • Does not constitute any loss of meaning
  • Can be tackled in one project, i.e. the "Dublin" release, as discussed1 at Wintercamp 2011
  • Existing old packages can be renamed without rebuilding
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License