4:16 p.m.
There are some discussions about merging parts of PlanetCCRMA into
Fedora Extras. One of the problems has to do with package namespace
conflicts. For instance, PlanetCCRMA has had a "muse" package for many
years (http://www.muse-sequencer.org). But now FE has an emacs
extension package called "muse". So, assuming the emacs extension
package can't be renamed, we need a new name for the musical muse
package.
One of the suggestions was to use the official project spelling of
"MusE" for the package name. Do the Extras packaging guidelines allow
this (having both MusE and muse package)?
AG
4:32 p.m.
Anthony Green (green(a)redhat.com) said:
There are some discussions about merging parts of PlanetCCRMA into
Fedora Extras. One of the problems has to do with package namespace
conflicts. For instance, PlanetCCRMA has had a "muse" package for many
years (http://www.muse-sequencer.org). But now FE has an emacs
extension package called "muse". So, assuming the emacs extension
package can't be renamed, we need a new name for the musical muse
package.
One of the suggestions was to use the official project spelling of
"MusE" for the package name. Do the Extras packaging guidelines allow
this (having both MusE and muse package)?
Some combination of CVS, bugzilla, and/or the buildsystem I suspect would
break.
Frankly, I'd rename the emacs thing emacs-muse, but that's just me. :)
Bill
4:48 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:32 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Some combination of CVS, bugzilla, and/or the buildsystem I suspect
would
break.
Frankly, I'd rename the emacs thing emacs-muse, but that's just me. :)
It's not just you. A few of us are of the same opinion. Unfortunately
the emacs muse package is now in Extras. Is it too late to rename it?
The name is a problem for anybody with mixed Extras & PlanetCCRMA
repositories.
AG
6:12 p.m.
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Anthony Green (green(a)redhat.com) said:
> There are some discussions about merging parts of PlanetCCRMA into
> Fedora Extras. One of the problems has to do with package namespace
> conflicts. For instance, PlanetCCRMA has had a "muse" package for many
> years (http://www.muse-sequencer.org). But now FE has an emacs
> extension package called "muse".
>
> One of the suggestions was to use the official project spelling of
> "MusE" for the package name. Do the Extras packaging guidelines allow
> this (having both MusE and muse package)?
> Some combination of CVS, bugzilla, and/or the buildsystem I suspect would
> break.
>
> Frankly, I'd rename the emacs thing emacs-muse, but that's just me. :)
>
Why not call the CCRMA packages "<package>-CCRMA"? That
way there's no
conflicts. If this is just a spec file change, it won't affect CVS, and
it's a relatively trivial build change. As for Bugzilla... well, I don't
know what kind of automatic hooks the software has into submitting bug
reports, but it should not be hard to strip the trailing -CCRMA for
submitting.
However, in this one case, I agree with the idea that if muse is an
emacs add-on, it should probably be emacs-muse.
6:46 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:12 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
However, in this one case, I agree with the idea that if muse is an
emacs add-on, it should probably be emacs-muse.
A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the LADSPA
plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just
<plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times.
There should be a rule or something to give names to the plugins and
add-ons based on the parent application.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
8:31 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:46 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
There should be a rule or something to give names to the plugins and
add-ons based on the parent application.
I think something like that makes sense. When I submitted hexter and
whysynth for review, I called them hexter-dssi and whysynth-dssi.
AG
8:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:46 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:12 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> However, in this one case, I agree with the idea that if muse is an
> emacs add-on, it should probably be emacs-muse.
A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the LADSPA
plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just
<plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times.
Hmmm, is that a real rule for Fedora packages?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/repoview/swh-plugins-0-0....
-- Fernando
8:58 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:38 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the
LADSPA
> plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just
> <plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times.
Hmmm, is that a real rule for Fedora packages?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/repoview/swh-plugins-0-0....
No, it's not a rule. Every once in a while there are package name rule
discussions (my personal "favorite" is perennial java-FOO discussion),
but, AFAIK, there have never been rules for plugins, etc.
When I added swh-plugins to Extras, I just used the name from CCRMA. If
I were to do it from scratch, I think maybe I would have used
swh-ladspa, or something like that. But I don't think it matters
enough to change now.
AG
9:09 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:58 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:38 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the LADSPA
> > plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just
> > <plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times.
>
> Hmmm, is that a real rule for Fedora packages?
> See:
>
http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/repoview/swh-plugins-0-0....
No, it's not a rule. Every once in a while there are package name rule
discussions (my personal "favorite" is perennial java-FOO discussion),
but, AFAIK, there have never been rules for plugins, etc.
When I added swh-plugins to Extras, I just used the name from CCRMA. If
I were to do it from scratch, I think maybe I would have used
swh-ladspa, or something like that. But I don't think it matters
enough to change now.
Ok... I'm not sure if it would be worth releasing the plugins I'm about
to release for fc5 (in the Planet CCRMA world so far) with
ladspa-whatever naming or not. Most probably not till there is some
consensus (otherwise I may be forced to switch again to something else -
would not be the first time something like that happened to me :-).
[I already have something like this, I name the pd external packages
pd-whatever]
-- Fernando
8:52 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:12 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Anthony Green (green(a)redhat.com) said:
>
>> There are some discussions about merging parts of PlanetCCRMA into
>> Fedora Extras. One of the problems has to do with package namespace
>> conflicts. For instance, PlanetCCRMA has had a "muse" package for
many
>> years (http://www.muse-sequencer.org). But now FE has an emacs
>> extension package called "muse".
>>
>> One of the suggestions was to use the official project spelling of
>> "MusE" for the package name. Do the Extras packaging guidelines
allow
>> this (having both MusE and muse package)?
>> Some combination of CVS, bugzilla, and/or the buildsystem I suspect would
>> break.
>>
>> Frankly, I'd rename the emacs thing emacs-muse, but that's just me. :)
Why not call the CCRMA packages "<package>-CCRMA"? That way there's
no
conflicts.
Because they are not part of CCRMA. Same reason for not naming extras
packages "extras-whatever".
-- Fernando
If this is just a spec file change, it won't affect CVS, and
it's a relatively trivial build change. As for Bugzilla... well, I don't
know what kind of automatic hooks the software has into submitting bug
reports, but it should not be hard to strip the trailing -CCRMA for
submitting.
However, in this one case, I agree with the idea that if muse is an
emacs add-on, it should probably be emacs-muse.
6561
days inactive
6562
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Aaron Sherman -
Anthony Green -
Bill Nottingham -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Florin Andrei