Naming things: CPM-ified org repos

[iboB]

What should be the convention for naming repos which are CPM-ified builds for existing projects which either don't use CMake or do, but it can't be used with CPM?

For example, boost:

• just boost
  • assuming that the project url https://github.com/cpm-cmake/boost will serve as a proper namespace
  • probably will be unpleasant to fork as the default name of the fork will be "boost" which may clash with existing repos with the same name
• boost-cpm
  • may also clash with a sub-project of the project which is unrelated, but has the name cpm. The convention <super>-<sub> is popular (say poco-websocket)
• cpm-boost
  • may be unpleasant if there is ever have a CMake package as by this convention it will be named cpm-cmake 😄
• boost.cpm
  • specifically for boost this is probably not a good idea, as the boost lib naming convention is boost.<lib>, say boost.asio
• Something else?

[TheLartians]

I'd say it depends.

• If we're adding CMake to a project that previously didn't have support it previously, I like the -cmake most (and would consistent with previous efforts, e.g. Orphis/boost-cmake). In general I think this would also be useful for non-CPM.cmake users, so, for better discoverability, the naming would indicate that it's not CPM.cmake exclusive.
• Otherwise, when making am existing project compatible with CPM.cmake, I'd vote for the -cpm suffix.