Thanks gnashley, I'll look forward to your thoughts on both packages that I left for review. Cheers

On the main topic again. I left a message to the administrators for docs.slackware.com at slackdocs-admin@alienbase.nl asking for a clarification on the package naming page. I have not seen an acknowledgement of my request or a change to the page at this time. Is there another contact to make or has my request gone it to the blackhole of missing bits and I should resubmit?

Sorry I don't see which page you are talking about. Could you please provide a link to it?

All means to reach the admins and editors are listed in http://docs.slackware.com/slackdocs:contact and as they are all volunteers they maybe can't answer as quickly as you would like.

Also, if you really mean that a page of the wiki should be modified or something in it clarified, the best thing to do would be to state which changes you want and why on the discussion tab of that page, I think.

Didier, thanks for offering to help out with this suggestion. I know we've already covered this in the other thread, but to a suggestion there.. I've opening this separate thread to capture the issues.

Thanks for attempting to address this for me. I don't have a log-in for the docs.slackware.com. Here is the page I'm referring to:
http://docs.slackware.com/howtos:sla...ding_a_package. However I believe this page could also use some clarification since it also has a high hit count for search term "package name".
http://docs.slackware.com/slackwareackage_management_hands_on?s[]=package&s[]=name

Since I'm not a log-in member I don't think I have access to the discussion tab. This is what I suggested in my email to admin
The clarifying language I would propose is:
"Note the dashes in the package name. The dashes should appear as above
separating each part of the package name. The version, arch and tag
parts must not have any dashes, while it is acceptable to have dash(es)
in the app part. So if the version has a subversion like say “1.0 RC2”
make sure you use 1.0_RC2 not 1.0-RC2. The arch should be something
like “i486”, noarch or "x86_64" for example. The tag should consist of
the build number and your initals, e.g. 1zb for Zaphod Beeblebrox's
first build, 2zb for his second build, etc. Official slackware packages
have only numbers as tags. The app part may either be aaa-elflibs or
aaa_elflibs, either is acceptable as long as all four parts are
represented in the total package name. All package names are read by
pkgtool from right to left so the right most dashes are important for
separating app-version-arch-tag."

Thank you again for your aid and educational approach to replies.

No, the build number is the build number, and the tag is the tag. Look at the beginning and the end of any SlackBuild at SlackBuilds.org...

@55020 The part you've quoted is in the existing language of referenced link on building a package. I only modified other language around that language, so perhaps the original posting mixing the build and tag nomenclature is wrong in the original information?

I continue to use rpm2tgz -srdn <package name> with rpm's from original developer or from OpenSUSE and get working acceptable packages. The only package I use src2pkg for is the XnViewMP since the developer creates .deb and .tgz files. The installation instructions for XnViewMP are great and can be used, but I prefer to installpkg and simply rename the file to match proper naming conventions.

Since this thread has not had any additional information in 60 days I'm going to mark it as solved so it can close properly.