Hideki Hiura | 2 Dec 21:48 2003

[openi18n-im:00544] Re: a binary package splitting scheme

> From: Yu Shao <yshao <at> redhat.com>
> I am not opposing using "htt", but if htt is the only iiimf
> implementation, iiimf-server would be more friendly to normal users.
> Also few normal users would like to figure out what "xbe" is(I know it
> is easy to distingush it as developer) and then install it, and also
> actually htt-xbe will be invoked by httx, why don't simply put them
> together and call them iiimf-x(or iiimf-htt-x).

Good point. Your idea, such as having consitent iiimf- prefix, follow
user's view point, definitely improves intuitiveness of package name. 

Let's get a closure on naming convention, so it would be consistent
among different distributions.

I summarized the idea currently on the table as below.

I find we agreed on mostly. A few things remaining are:

 1. Should "htt-" be in the server package/the server specific
    component(LEs particular) packages?
 2. Should all lib packages be separated or consolidated into one?
 3. Should the LE packages be categorized per language or name?

My take for 2 is to separate at least for server libs and client libs,
and for 3 is to categorize per LE names, and for 1, either is fine.

Any idea?

Components         | Yu Shao idea   | Roger + Toshi idea | Hideki's suggestion
(Continue reading)