On 2022-11-28 23:19:09 (+0100), Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) wrote: > Hello list, > > We're planning to make PipeWire the default PulseAudio sound server, and > for that we need to change some dependencies around. Notably, we want a > virtual "pulseaudio server" package that is fulfilled by both > pipewire-pulse and pulseaudio, with preference for the former. > > However, we weren't sure what to name it. We don't seem to have a > consistent naming scheme for virtual packages besides soprovides > (libfoo.so). Most virtual packages look like normal ones (e.g. > java-runtime, d-compiler). > > Some packages use SCREAMING-KEBAB-CASE to clearly separate "virtual" from > "normal" dependencies (e.g. WIREGUARD-MODULE), which makes their weirdness > (pacman -Si fails) less surprising. I'm not sure that's a pattern we want > to continue, but I still would like a consistent scheme. > > Looking forward to your input, > Jan
Hi Jan, I'd be happy to see a more stream-lined approach here, that identifies the virtual dependencies for what they are. E.g. prefixed by a "virtual-" or "virtual@" string. In regards to the existing all-caps virtual provides/dependencies, it would be nice to change them to comply with our current guidelines on package naming [1]. That way they will get easier to parse (no extra rules required) and validate, which is currently still an issue when it comes to validation of package relations (i.e. provides, depends, optdepends, makedepends) in repod [2]. Best, David [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_naming [2] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/repod/-/issues/10 -- https://sleepmap.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
