rpm or rpm-rs

[drahnr]

Currently we don't have access to rpm-rs as a crate name, but we have rpm. Imho rpm is more favorable. The -rs suffix is just redundant information after all, it's scoped to rpm-rs already.

[cmeister2]

The crate is also imported as use rpm too. IMHO rpm is the better name and we should just use it.

[dralley]

That's fair, my line of thinking is that

• rpm is the name of the official library written in C, shadowing the name isn't necessarily the worst thing but the clarification could be helpful
• You can't have both repos forked without renaming one of them
• If we wanted to have any binaries, we'd have to be careful about their naming to not have them confused with or shadow system utilities

[drahnr]

So far the focus was on providing a library, and for that, use rpm::.. is easier.

I think the addition of a library included being called rpm exists, especially due to the implicit rule of Cargo.toml and the presence of a main, but I don't think it mandates not moving on to the single most direct macht of a crate name we can get. I'd rather add a CI job to prevent having a main.rs without a binary section in the manifest, or a manifest section that creates an rpm binary.