Am Donnerstag, den 04.05.2006, 02:52 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:39:42AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:05:03AM -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > > > 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. > > OK, thanks, that was what I was looking for. So oot drivers have free > > nomenclature (e.g. following the project's name), and when (if) they > > enter xorg-x11 they become canonicalized to xorg-x11-drv-foo. > > Maybe I should toss it to fedoraproject.org's wiki somehwere. > I've added an entry to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines > > "Addon Packages (x11 drivers)" No offense, but I removed it again. Changes to these kind of documents are best (read "best" -- not "have to be") discussed with FESCo, on fedora-packaging and/or with spot, the original author and maintainer of this document and the Packaging Guidelines in general. BTW: Shortly before FC5 was released there was a irc-discussion regarding the package naming of the proprietary nvidia and fglrx drivers. It was on #fedora-extras (spot was involved in that discussion, too) -- the consensus was "use prefix xorg-x11-drv even for non-Xorg drivers". And that's what livna did for FC5 then. We should probably discuss this during the next FESCo-Meeting with spot. CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
