[Bug 710386] Review Request: gnome-shell-extensions-system-monitor - A Gnome shell system monitor extension

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386

--- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014 at gmail.com> 2011-06-03 07:43:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, I don't care how those packages are called (with or without 's'). The
> gnome-shell-extensions packages started to name packages like
> 'gnome-shell-extensions-XXX'. I thinks that we should go on with this naming
Well, I know, I'm one of the maintainers of gnome-shell-extensions ^^.
These extensions were built as subpackages of the main package
"gnome-shell-extensions", and so named "gnome-shell-extensions-<foo>", as
defined in the guidelines.
It seemed logical to me to refer to "third-party" extensions under the name
"gnome-shell-extension-<bar>", since the package would provide only one
extension "a priori". Maybe we'll need to specify guidelines for such
extensions, becoming more numerous.

> > This extension will be enabled in the Fedora package gnome-shell-extensions
> > very soon. To avoid confusions, shouldn't your package named
> > gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet, as for the project name?
> The other extension will be named gnome-shell-extensions-systemMonitor, this
> one here gnome-shell-extension(s)-system-monitor. I think to use 'applet' is a
> bad idea because this terminology belongs to Gnome 2.x.
Indeed, maybe 'applet' is not appropriate here. It mayb be a case to report
upstream. But it doesn't change the fact that the project name is, for the
moment, "system-monitor-applet". And logically, the corresponding package
should reflect it in its name. Unless there are guidelines describing such a
case.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.