There are many packages in dev-scheme that are supplimentary libraries for a particular distribution of scheme, but for 3 of these, the fact that these do not work with "Scheme" in general, but rather for a specific implementation of Scheme, is not easily identifiable. All of the other packages seem to follow a simple naming convention. I propose that we formalize this and fix the 3 packages that break it. I propose the following naming convention for packages in the dev-scheme tree: 1) Interpreters and compilers will be givin their base name, eg bigloo will remain bigloo. There are currently no packages in violation of this convention. 2) Libraries particular to a specific implementation will be given the implementations name, followed by a dash and the name of the library, eg, bigloo-lib is named correctly, but goosh should be renamed guile-goosh. 3) Cross implementation libraries will start with "lib-". There are no current examples of such libraries in dev-scheme/*, but if slib were moved here it would be named "dev-scheme/lib-slib". Following this convention, the following packages should be renamed: dev-scheme/drscheme -> dev-scheme/mzscheme-drscheme dev-scheme/goosh -> dev-scheme/guile-goosh dev-scheme/net-http -> dev-scheme/guile-net-http
Good suggestion. I definately agree on goosh and net-http, or should I say guile-goosh and guile-net-http. I'm not sure about drScheme, because it includes (and blocks) mzScheme, so it is more like an implementation. Maybe they should be combined in one ebuild named PLTScheme. slib should probably be moved to dev-scheme from dev-libs, but I don't like the redundancy of lib-slib.
PLTScheme is a special case. I think it should go 1 or 2 ways with that: 1) Add mzscheme to the pltscheme ebuild, and conditionally, based on a new USE variable, "drscheme" which defaults to on, use the current drscheme install. if drscheme is not defined, install the current mzscheme distfile. 2) Alternatively, remove mzscheme from the drscheme distfile and make mzscheme a dependancy of drscheme instead of blocking it. This is probably the best *if* removing mzscheme from the drscheme distribution is not too much trouble. As for lib-slib being redundant.. it is ;) It is, however, not misleading, and a decent form for future cross-platform libs, eg, lib-srfi34 or lib-foo. I would not be diametrically opposed to leaving off a prefix altogether for cross platform libs, but I think the clearest mechanism is to prefix them to distinguish them easily from compilers/interpreters. Perhaps "lib-" isn't the best prefix either... maybe "cross-platform-" or "scheme-" or "global-"... I don't like any of these better than "lib-", but we might come up with something better with some brainstorming.
dberkholz, looks like you added dev-scheme/{goosh,net-http}. Talk to me if you want me to do it.
Does the problem still matter? Looks like `dev-scheme/goosh` and `dev-scheme/net-http` both point to Guile in description.
This bug, is here for ages. As scheme team, our latter policy is to use whatever names upstream people choose to give, unless there is some files collision etc. I will resolve the bug as WONTFIX, and I 'll close it. Dmitry, thanks for reminding us.
