tex related packages naming

[Patrice Dumas]

Hello,

Could it be possible for the packaging commitee to decide on that issue,
please? The proposals are:

* prefix with tex-
* no specific naming. Prefix with tex- when another package has the same
  name

Could it be possible to have a vote/decision on that issue?







In any case I think that a (long) period should be left for packagers 
to change their package names.

--
Pat

[Tom Callaway]

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 00:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  Could it be possible for the packaging commitee to decide on that issue,
>  please? The proposals are:
>  
>  * prefix with tex-
>  * no specific naming. Prefix with tex- when another package has the same
>    name
>  
>  Could it be possible to have a vote/decision on that issue? 
Please pick one and propose it to us. (Or both, as they seem to work
well together).

Ideally, also follow our well-documented (although, not always well
known) procedure:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#head-bc786fd8400956418c...

Thanks,

~spot

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:53:32PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>  
>  On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 00:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > Hello,
>  > 
>  > Could it be possible for the packaging commitee to decide on that issue,
>  > please? The proposals are:
>  > 
>  > * prefix with tex-
>  > * no specific naming. Prefix with tex- when another package has the same
>  >   name
>  > 
>  > Could it be possible to have a vote/decision on that issue?
>  
>  Please pick one and propose it to us. (Or both, as they seem to work
>  well together). 
I can't propose one, since there are people that want one and other
that want the other. I am asking for a ruling by the packaging 
commitee.

As for the Guideline change procedure, maybe this is useful in some 
cases, but what I ask for is a precise question for an existing point 
in guideline which is now wrong (use of the tetex- prefix), I don't
think that bureaucracy is neeed (in that case, it is different for
more complex guidelines).

--
Pat

[Tom Callaway]

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:45 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:53:32PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>  > 
>  > On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 00:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  > > Hello,
>  > > 
>  > > Could it be possible for the packaging commitee to decide on that issue,
>  > > please? The proposals are:
>  > > 
>  > > * prefix with tex-
>  > > * no specific naming. Prefix with tex- when another package has the same
>  > >   name
>  > > 
>  > > Could it be possible to have a vote/decision on that issue?
>  > 
>  > Please pick one and propose it to us. (Or both, as they seem to work
>  > well together).
>  
>  I can't propose one, since there are people that want one and other
>  that want the other. I am asking for a ruling by the packaging 
>  commitee. 
Fair enough. I propose that we change the prefix from tetex- to tex-,
since these packages were prefixed before.

~spot

[Toshio Kuratomi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 07:45 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:53:32PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 00:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible for the packaging commitee to decide on that issue,
> >>> please? The proposals are:
> >>>
> >>> * prefix with tex-
> >>> * no specific naming. Prefix with tex- when another package has the same
> >>>   name
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible to have a vote/decision on that issue?
> >> Please pick one and propose it to us. (Or both, as they seem to work
> >> well together).
> > I can't propose one, since there are people that want one and other
> > that want the other. I am asking for a ruling by the packaging 
> > commitee.
>  
>  Fair enough. I propose that we change the prefix from tetex- to tex-,
>  since these packages were prefixed before.
>   
If email voting is sufficient for this,

+1 to making the prefix tex-

- -Toshio

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG9FVhX6yAic2E7kgRApByAKCf3aAqqqEk1aMqmuXlRFe1xLCplgCfa1MP
> YHzK0+IvO6coB8JpJRTde9Y=
> =c13X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:36:01 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  If email voting is sufficient for this,
>  
>  +1 to making the prefix tex- 
+1 from the "just pick one and be consistent" crowd.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

[Ville Skyttä]

On Saturday 22 September 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>  +1 to making the prefix tex- 
+1

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi
> <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: 
TK> +1 to making the prefix tex-

+1 here as well.

 - J<

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 24 Sep 2007 10:24:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; wrote:
>  >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi
> <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; writes:
>
>  TK> +1 to making the prefix tex-
>
>  +1 here as well. 
And me.

Can we also consider adding some virtual provides for making add-on
packages TeX distribution agnostic.

[Tom Callaway]

On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:49 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>  On 24 Sep 2007 10:24:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
> <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; wrote:
>  > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt;
> writes:
>  >
>  > TK> +1 to making the prefix tex-
>  >
>  > +1 here as well.
>  
>  And me.
>  
>  Can we also consider adding some virtual provides for making add-on
>  packages TeX distribution agnostic. 
Such as?

I don't know TeX from a hole in the ground. If you know better, please
draft guidelines for it. As long as they don't seem to have come from a
haze of bong smoke, we'll probably sign off on them. Deferring to those
who know what they're talking about is our secret to success. :)

~spot

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 25/09/2007, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:49 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>  > On 24 Sep 2007 10:24:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt;
> wrote:
>  > > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi
> <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; writes:
>  > >
>  > > TK> +1 to making the prefix tex-
>  > >
>  > > +1 here as well.
>  >
>  > And me.
>  >
>  > Can we also consider adding some virtual provides for making add-on
>  > packages TeX distribution agnostic.
>
>  Such as?
>
>  I don't know TeX from a hole in the ground. If you know better, please
>  draft guidelines for it. As long as they don't seem to have come from a
>  haze of bong smoke, we'll probably sign off on them. Deferring to those
>  who know what they're talking about is our secret to success. :) 

Well, some early proposals are here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming

Basically, have texlive-bin Provides: TeX such that add-ons can
Require: TeX. That way, if someone needs to install a different
(La)TeX distribution than TeXLive (others do exist), she can still use
the add-on packages (where it makes sense to do so. Depending on how
texlive eventualy ends up being packaged, it may be that we want to
add more fine grained virtual provides, eg tex, latex, tex-dvips,
tex-pdflatex etc etc. This really needs to be done in consideration of
the packaging strategy of texlive though. Input from Jindrich would be
useful.

>  ~spot
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>