In the context of moving pyarrow into the arrow-cpp-feedstock, there was some discussion of naming the outputs, and I brought up the following:

Regarding the naming conventions, I think it might be worth renaming arrow-cpp to libarrow. This is in line with a lot of other feedstocks, but obviously a matter of taste. In this case, we'd have to have a compatibility output of arrow-cpp that depends on libarrow, which could be dropped after a few versions.

@isuruf made me aware of this in the context of faiss. Other examples I can think of off the top of my head are blas & lapack, openblas, opencv, postgresql, gdal, plus a whole bunch more (non-exhaustive).

Of course, this recipe has some counter examples to this: aws-sdk-cpp, boost-cpp, grpc-cpp, thrift-cpp, but I think they are far in the minority and the same argument could be made for renaming those (maybe worth noting that at least the last two seem to have been started by the arrow team).

Following @isuruf's and @xhochy's input, I'm opening this issue here. Also note @isuruf's comment:

@isuruf: -cpp was a trend that I started with boost-cpp. That was a mistake. I'm in favour of changing it, but this is not the correct place to raise the issue.