On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 00:33 +0200, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
Thanks for that.
Hm... I see what you mean now. I like the first one better for some
reason, but I can try to make a compromise - I'll play with various
positions and decide what seems best.
> > 5) The packages are misnamed. They should be
gtk2-engine-nodoka,
> > gnome-theme-nodoka, and metacity-theme-nodoka.
> >
> gtk-engine-nodoka as in gtk-engine-murrine. No point in changing already
> used naming schemes.
It's disheartening to see "they already screwed up" as justification for
this. But at least it's the truth.
Yep, I dunno whether this naming scheme is screwed up, but I see no
point in using two different schemes in one repo.
> nodoka-theme-gnome is used because the main name is nodoka
theme
> (similar scheme to beryl-gnome, which is metapackage pulling all gnome
> related beryl bits in), so I put it in the front, noone mentioned it as
> an issue in the review request, also there are currently no naming
> guidelines for that AFAIK.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5ff...
"If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds
a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful
on its own, its name should reflect this fact.
The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its
name, in the format: %{parent}-%{child}."
I see the parent as being gnome, and the child as being nodoka.
Well, yet never complained about that till now (not a justification).
Better move this part of discussion to -devel (CC-ing).
But from my point of view I see nodoka as the parent and the children
are theme for metacity, theme+engine for gtk2 and gnome metatheme (and
more will hopefully come later), so IMHO it is rather questionable in
this case. And as I used these names in upstream packages as well it
would require a change there as well, because I AFAIK fedora package
name should not differ from upstream name (save for the parent additions
in addons packages).
> nodoka-metacity-theme as in {echo,tango}-icon-theme.
Well, that's stretching just a bit. There's a difference between a set
of icons packaged to create a theme, and a theme for just a single app.
You're probably right there.
Martin
> I looked at various theme packages that were in the repos and
decided on
> these names after. If there are any guidelines concerning this, please
> forward me to them, if not it would be good to create ones, what do you
> think?
I definitely think this would be a good idea. Plenty of package reviews
have come and gone with comments about naming, but still we have
contention, as observed here.