From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-09-01 14:18:09
|
On Monday 01 September 2008 12:32:50 Keith Marshall wrote: > > Keith, I've noticed that you've made several commits around the > > printf stuff in runtime. Is it ready to go? > > Yes. I've also committed a new implementation of getopt(). > > I was planning to give you some words for the press release:-- > [...snip...] I also intended to raise a discussion point, concerning the package name: given the tacit agreement on reviewing naming conventions, and the suggested adoption of a convention:-- <tarname> := <package-id>-<subsystem-id>[-<dev-status>]-<type-id> <package-id> := <name>-<version> <subsystem-id> := <name>[-<version>] <dev-status> := alpha | beta | stable ; omitted ==> stable <type-id> := <component-id>.<archive-type>[.<compression-type>] <component-id> := <component-type>[-<version>] <component-type> := bin | dll | dev | src | doc then, mingw-runtime should identify the subsystem as `mingw32', and, since it provides a suite of development libraries and headers, the component-id should be `dev', its tarname would become:-- mingw-runtime-3.15-mingw32-dev.tar.gz However, that introduces a potentially ugly tautology on `mingw'; to avoid that, we could instead simply call it:-- runtime-3.15-mingw32-dev.tar.gz Is that too radical a change to adopt? Opinions? Regards, Keith. |