Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
-- Pat
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
The packages are latex packages after all...
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
As soon as tetex is gone the name tetex- will be weird. The funny part is that we only have this problem because we have named the packages not following our general guidelines (packages are named after the language, not the implementation). ;-)
-- Pat
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:55:00AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
latex is a subset of TeX. For example tetex-tex4ht works for tex and latex.
-- Pat
On Thursday 30 August 2007 10:02:57 Patrice Dumas wrote:
latex is a subset of TeX. For example tetex-tex4ht works for tex and latex.
I was thinking about context¹ modules and to have a way to distinguish them. But it there are modules that work with tex and not latex then the point is moot, it is not worth to have yet another category.
-- Pat
¹ with the proper capitalisation that I always forget
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:55:00AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
The packages are latex packages after all...
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
As soon as tetex is gone the name tetex- will be weird. The funny part is that we only have this problem because we have named the packages not following our general guidelines (packages are named after the language, not the implementation). ;-)
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
Jindrich
On Thursday 30 August 2007 11:17:44 Jindrich Novy wrote:
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
Jindrich
tex is a programming language, so IMHO we should follow the same rules as used for other programming languages, prefixing the package name with the language name.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups: tag.
Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.
On 31/08/2007, Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups: tag.
Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.
Thing is, (la)tex add on packages are frequently named with rather generic names, and so there is a very real world need for a prefix, I would argue.... eg. preview, prosper, unicode, bytefield (all current tetex add-ons)... I could imagine other programs chosing these names too. It seems to be a fact that programmers lack originality in naming :)
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
Please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming
which I put together a number of months ago (and mentioned on list) - feel free to edit and add suggestions.
Jonathan.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:53:14PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named tex-something instead of tetex-something
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
Please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming
which I put together a number of months ago (and mentioned on list) - feel free to edit and add suggestions.
I remembered something but I was too lazy to search ;-)
I think that there are 2 distinct issues that are raised in your proposal
* tex related package names * virtual requires/provides
I think that they should be discussed apart. The second issue could be solved simply without the packaging commitee ruling, but by asking Jindrich to add the virtual provide. Then the use of this provide could be advocated in the guidelines.
I suggest discussing the virtual provides in one of the texlive submissions.
For the tex related package names, my personnal point of view would be not to distinguish tex and latex add-ons (at least in the name). I have a slight preference for prepending tex- to all the tex/latex related packages.
-- Pat
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
I think that there are 2 distinct issues that are raised in your proposal
- tex related package names
- virtual requires/provides
I think that they should be discussed apart. The second issue could be solved simply without the packaging commitee ruling, but by asking Jindrich to add the virtual provide. Then the use of this provide could be advocated in the guidelines.
Yep.
I suggest discussing the virtual provides in one of the texlive submissions.
OK.
For the tex related package names, my personnal point of view would be not to distinguish tex and latex add-ons (at least in the name). I have a slight preference for prepending tex- to all the tex/latex related packages.
Yes - I favour that too, but put other suggestions up there for consideration.
-- Pat
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Jindrich Novy -
Jonathan Underwood -
José Abílio Matos -
Patrice Dumas