Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild naming policy

[Dave Nellans]

Is that true?

my very scientific test of doing emerge -p ocaml on several machines
returns that dev-lang/ocaml would be installed on every one.  this would
seem there is at least "some" mechanism defining which one is returned,
even if its as silly as being alphebetical by by category name or ??

thanks for the link to the ebuild naming policy chris.  it doesn't
address this issue though of multiple ebuilds having the same name if
they are in different categories. anyone have thoughts on how this
should be done from a technical or user standpoint?  i think from a user
standpoint it makes more sense to allow multiple ebuilds with the same
name because then a user searching for them will have both returned
(even if they have to user the category/ebuild to get that particular
one to install)

dave

On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 17:16, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> They don't coexist happily. It's impossible to say definitively which
> one you'll get when you emerge appname if appname exists in two
> different categories.
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 05:42:43PM -0600, Dave Nellans wrote:
> > do we have an established naming policy for ebuilds, and where can i
> > find it?
> >
> > my gripe is that when i submitted the ebuild for a program named "balsa"
> > (under app-sci/tbass) several devs told me i could not name it balsa
> > because the gnome email client balsa already uses that name.  i believed
> > that is why apps were listed under app-sci, dev-db, etc... which is why
> > this structure existed in the first place.  i was told however this was
> > not so and that this wasn't allowed.  in the end the ebuild was called
> > tbass which is very non-intuitive having a ebuild named something very
> > dissimilar to its common name.
> >
> > all was fine untill i went to install ocaml and did emerge -s ocaml only
> > to find there are TWO packages named ocaml that co-exist seemingly
> > happily in different categories.  this brings back my original question
> > of if we have a specific naming policy or if some of the dev's are
> > mistaken about things.
> >
> > if we don't have a naming policy yet, should we?  it seems as if naming
> > issues are becoming more significant now that the number of packages in
> > portage continues to grow.
> >
> > any thoughts?
> > dave
--