Mike A. Harris <mharris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>- indicate that the software is an official part of the X.Org X11
>distribution
Perhaps symptomatic of the rationale being insufficiently mnemonic. :-)
I know my expectation of a common packaging prefix is a) one of namespace and b)
imposed by the distribution (not upstream). This implies that perl-* packages
are all packages that the distributor deems related to Perl (modules, supporting
utilities, etc.) but excepting "applications" that happen to be implemented in
Perl. I would hold similar expectations for python-* and java-*.
In the xorg-x11-* case I would definitely expect a driver, say, in this
namespace to be in that namespace _because_ it is compatible with and
supporting, extending, or augmenting "xorg-x11".
However, I would certainly understand — and possibly also advocate — that a
suitable entity is given authority over a given namespace to avoid clashes.
This latter should not require trademark protection to enforce within a
distribution, but it may be X is a special case and with additional requirements
to reflect its more cross-distribution needs.
BTW, this isn't an argument that one or another set of packages should be
renamed. I think, rather, that I conclude Fedora needs to come up with a general
namespace policy that ensure _all_ namespaces have the same underlying semantics
and then take whatever suitable steps to bring the distribution into compliance
with that.
--
«Terje, you are a sick and twisted individual, and I
think I speak for all of us when I say, “Thank you!”»
-- John Gruber <gruber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
