[MinGW-dvlpr] RFC: Naming convention for package tarballs

[Keith M. <kei...@us...>]

Hello All,

I'm currently gearing up for a release of a native build of a catgets
package, (a prerequisite for creating an internationalised man).  I plan
to provide three packages:--

1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz -- the complete source code.

2) mingw-catgets-1.0-dev.tar.gz -- a precompiled development kit; it
will comprise the headers, static libs and import libs, manpages and
tools (executables) needed for creating i18n applications, based on a
POSIX standard `catgets' implementation, and the message catalogues
required to support them.

3) mingw-catgets-1.0-bin.tar.gz -- a precompiled DLL version of the
catgets library.

Those three packages are named as I've set up my Makefile to create
them, and consistently with the naming convention adopted for the
`regex' library originally contributed by Tor Lillqvist; however, it
*isn't* consistent with the convention Chuck has adopted for some of 
his packages in the MSYS Supplementary Tools set, (e.g. libiconv).

If I were to adopt Chuck's convention, then I should probably make my
three packages:--

1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz
2) mingw-catgets-1.0-bin.tar.gz
3) mingw-catgets-1.0-dll.tar.gz

or possibly:--

1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz
2) mingw-catgets-1.0-dev.tar.gz
3) mingw-catgets-1.0-dll.tar.gz

Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions,
or shall I just go ahead with the first, as I have it at present?  It is
trivial for me to change it, but if I'm going to do so, I want to do it
before I cut the release.

Regards,
Keith.