On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 12:58 +0200, dragoran wrote: > > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Should packages with source from outside of the xorg-x11 tree carry > > > this prefix (e.g. ivtv, nvidia, ati, etc)? E.g. is this a prefix like > > > often used "for <prefix>" or is it a cendor prefix, e.g. "by > > > <prefix>"? > > > > > > How would a 3rd party driver package be best named? > > > xorg-x11-drv-<driver> or <3rd-party-vendor>-drv-<driver>? > > > > > > > I would say use > > > > xorg-x11-drv-<driver> > > > > the second one only confuses users. > > but xorg-x11 is the name of the upstream vendor, and probably > trademarked or close to that. So I would suggest to not do that; even if > it's not a legal trademark, it makes sure that users realize where it > comes from (and thus where to report bugs ;) Which brings us back to the question, does the prefix really imply "by <prefix>" or "for <prefix>". Usually in packaging practice "<prefix>-foo" means foo built for <prefix>, e.g. the miriads of perl-XXX packages, now python-XXX, too, java-XXX, gkrellm-XXX, and all other module- or plugin-type packages. I don't mind either way, I just want to hear a clear statement from the X11 packaging folks. Personally I tend to hear the sound of the vendor in it, but I see many folks suggesting to use it as a domain prefix. That's why I'm bringing it up. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpByv0N01lZE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
