[Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch

[arnuld uttre]

> On 8/29/14, André Silva <emulatorman at riseup.net> wrote:

> The following 4 suggestions have been offered:

Well, I am not a parabola developer, I as strong supporter of Free
Software and I will like to give my opinion worth of 2 bits :)

>  1) Add the -libre suffix to all packages that are modified from Arch
>     for freedom reasons (so not for rebranding reasons). (fauno)
>
>     lukeshu: Why "except for rebranding"?

Correct. Parabola stands for a distro based on completely  Free
Software. We do not need to add -libre suffix for packages modified
from Arch.



>  2) Add the -libre suffix on packages for patched-source software.
>     (lukeshu)
>
>     lukeshu: Because the name "${pkgbase}-libre" denotes that it is a
>     fork of "${pkgbase}" that is maintained by the Parabola project,
>     similar to Iceweasel being maintained by Debian, or Linux-libre by
>     GNU/the FSFLA.

I agree. It is no longer vanilla, it is a modified form of original,
hence we need to add -libre.


>  3) Don't ever use the -libre suffix (mtjm)
>  4) Use -libre for patched-source software, and -parabola
>     for packaging or configuration changes. (coadde)

>     The "-libre" policy from #2, plus using another suffix to
>     differentiate between Arch's version and Parabola's version to
>     avoid confusion when migrating.

I agree. If we change configuration then it becomes a package
maintained by parabola-team, therefore it is a good idea to add
-parabola suffix.

Thanks

-- arnuld
http://uttre.wordpress.com/
http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/extract-of-programming/