Axel Thimm wrote:
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.
It's used in a 'by' sense, notice that we have other out of tree drivers
in the distribution already: synaptics and linuxwacom.
cheers,
Kristian
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
