I received this response from the upstream author regarding the package name.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Kirill Simonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Anders Kaseorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: LibYAML tarball name Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:05:16 +0300 Hi Anders, Anders Kaseorg wrote: > I am packaging LibYAML for inclusion in Debian, so that their PyYAML > package can be built against it. > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484381> > > debian-devel recommended renaming the package from "yaml" to "libyaml", > and suggested that the upstream tarball should be renamed as well. This > is not absolutely necessary, since the tarball can be renamed for > Debian, but would be less confusing. Thank you for your efforts! The development of libyaml is somewhat stalled, but I expect to resume it after I defend my dissertation. The tarball name was chosen to be in line with names like sqlite or expat. For instance, in Debian there's a binary package 'libsqlite3-0', which is built from a source package 'sqlite3'. Similarly, there's a source package 'expat' together with a binary package 'libexpat1'. Following these examples, we could get a source package 'yaml' and a binary package 'libyaml0. I agree, however, that the name 'yaml' for a package might be confusing since it's the name of a language that has multiple implementations and it may be not polite to use this name for one particular implementation. So I may rename the package if I come up with an alternative naming scheme. I'll consider renaming the tarball and the project name for the next release. Thanks, Kirill -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
