Comment 8 for bug 1927004

I agree -supported is a bad term to use, it indeed is far too ambiguous; the meaning of 'supported' varies wildly depending on who you ask. I think even between us three discussing this the meaning probably is different ;-)

I don't have particularly strong feelings on the specific naming of each package, other than not using the plain name 'fence-agents'. I wonder if this topic is worth an email to ubuntu-devel-discuss to come up with some standardized naming for packages that are split into 'good' and 'bad' (and 'ugly') binary debs? Or maybe even debian-devel-discuss...possibly some of the old-school debian/ubuntu people might have already discussed this topic.

The -good, -bad, -ugly naming may be most appropriate but we probably shouldn't have people pick naming arbitrarily each time a package is split into multiple debs like this. For example another naming approach might be -stable and -unstable.