Re: Suggestions for package naming/split

It's better to have the package name follow the class names, so Debian_Utils would be a bit vauge in that respect. The only idea I had for this was Category: Tool & Utilities Packages: Linux_Debian_* Since there is no base class, listing them as seperate packages makes sense. (I know Debian is also BSD, but for the most part it is Linux based, and I would not be too keen on reserving the Debian namespace for fear of future conflicts..) Regards Alan On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:20 -0500, Pablo Fischer wrote: > Hi, > > I'm writing some PHP classes that I want to submit/upload to PEAR > (obviously, using PEPr, votes, etc..). These classes are focused in > Debian, I'm currently splitting them in two parts: > > - User: Debian_Apt, Debian_File and Debian_BTS -Bug Tracking System- > - Devel: I don't have any classes currently but I'm thinking in writing > a Debian package creator and/or a package validator. > > But I have some questions for releasing these packages: > > I can release a Debian_Utils package that will have both parts (User and > Devel), but in the case of Debian_BTS it depends on another package > (Mail[2] package) and the Devel classes depend on another package > (File_Archive). > > So, my question is: is there any conventions for splitting packages? > Should I split the packages by their dependencies so I should create > many PEPr(s): > > * Package: Debian_Apt > * Package: Debian_File > * Package: Debian_BTS > * Package: Debian_Devel > * Package: Debian_Lintian > > Or should I create just one package (Debian_Utils) and add a lot of > dependencies to it and don't care if a user needs to download Mail > package also if Debian_BTS is not going to be used by the user?. > > Pablo > > [1] http://lintian.debian.org/