packaging naming convention

Forum Forums antiX-development antiX Respins packaging naming convention

  • This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated Oct 1-2:08 pm by techore.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #118436

      @anticapitalista et al, question on your naming convention for antix packages. I believe you are suffixing all antix packages with -antix. What was the reason in doing this?

      I am creating packages and I modeled my naming convention after Debian packages. Later, I noticed your suffix and taking a step back to reconsider. Should I use a suffix as well? If true, do I use -antix or to avoid confusion between antix official packages and mine use something else, e.g. axdwm?

      I appreciate your time and guidance.

      • This topic was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by techore.

        I will butt in even if not called. If your package doesn’t exist in the Debian or antiX repos, use the normal Debian name and versioning scheme. antiX also uses it for some packages, like zzzfm, slimski, runit-service-manager…

        I believe you are suffixing all antix packages with -antix. What was the reason in doing this?

        This is probably for 2 reasons:
        1. To make it clear they are antiX apps/packages, so people know they are not coming from other sources.
        2. To avoid getting replaced by already existing Debian packages. An example for this is the runit-antix package; a runit package already exists, but it doesn’t include all the changes that makes antiX’s version of runit superior, so we don’t want conflicts with it.

        If your package is derived from an existing package, give it a special name. If it isn’t, and its name is also unique, keep the name you originally came up with. It may be used by other Debian based systems too, so keeping a simple name is best.


          @abc-nix, usually I open these posts using “@anticapitalista et al,” so you are not butting in, really. It was very late, long day, and I was tired so dropped the “et al.” Fixed original post.

          On the naming convention, our thoughts align.

          I will continue with my current naming convention unless someone has a salient point to the contrary.

          Thank you. :D

        Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.