Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

Hi all,

My Google-fu has turned up nothing on this this. Is there a preferred
standard for naming packages of Apache mods? I see everything in [extra] is
just "mod_name" but some AUR packages are "apache-mod_name"

Personally I prefer the "apache-mod_name" form, but I take the format of
[extra] to be the official word? It doesn't seem to have been discussed
before (as best I can find in my searching) so thought I would raise it.

I have packages in AUR using both formats and I want to bring them in line
with "the right way", whichever that is ;)

Cheers,
~p

Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

Phillip Smith wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> My Google-fu has turned up nothing on this this. Is there a preferred
> standard for naming packages of Apache mods? I see everything in [extra] is
> just "mod_name" but some AUR packages are "apache-mod_name"
>
> Personally I prefer the "apache-mod_name" form, but I take the format of
> [extra] to be the official word? It doesn't seem to have been discussed
> before (as best I can find in my searching) so thought I would raise it.
>
> I have packages in AUR using both formats and I want to bring them in line
> with "the right way", whichever that is ;)
>
> Cheers,
> ~p

Hi Phillip,

I'm not aware of any official recommendation. I prefer "apache-mod_name"
because it's consistent with other recommended module naming schemes. In the
absence of a better argument I recommend that you go with that.

I wouldn't place too much weight on the naming scheme in [extra]. There are many
examples of packages in the official repos that clearly break conventions.

Regards,
Xyne

Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:

> prefer "apache-mod_name"
>

Big +1, it's consistent and clear what the package is, and is likely to turn
up in common searches.

Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

2011/6/27 Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
>
>> *prefer "apache-mod_name"
>>
>
> Big +1, it's consistent and clear what the package is, and is likely to turn
> up in common searches.
>

Would this be a case for adding apache modules in Arch Package
Standards' Guideline ? [1]

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Additional_Guidelines

-- Rafael

Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

On 28 June 2011 04:03, Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
>
> > prefer "apache-mod_name"
> >
>
> Big +1, it's consistent and clear what the package is, and is likely to
> turn
> up in common searches.
>

Thanks for the input guys; as I mentioned, that's my preference too
personally, but the packages in [extra] made me think twice. I'll move my
packages to have tha apache- prefix :)

Package Guidelines: Naming of Apache mods
 

On 28 June 2011 04:03, Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
>
> > prefer "apache-mod_name"
> >
>
> Big +1, it's consistent and clear what the package is, and is likely to
> turn
> up in common searches.
>

Thanks for the input guys; as I mentioned, that's my preference too
personally, but the packages in [extra] made me think twice. I'll move my
packages to have tha apache- prefix :)