On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 03:16 +0100, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:28:50AM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > during the review of the resynthesizer plugin for GIMP > > [ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250210 ], I asked the > > package to be named "gimp-plugin-resynthesizer" rather than > > "gimp-resynthesizer". Ewan brought up the point that there isn't really > > a naming guideline for it, therefore I'd like to propose one: > > > The name gimp-resynthesizer was chosen by applying the generic case of > the package naming guidelines which cover anything that's not special > cased. That's what I meant (should have been "... there isn't a special naming guideline for it."). > > If a package provides several distinct features that have value of their > > own (use your own discretion on that), it must ship them as separate > > subpackages. In that case, the source package is named > > "gimp-extension-<collectionname>" where <collectionname> is a sensible > > name for the collection (see examples). > > > > That's all of the different kinds of extensions for GIMP I can think > > about right now, feel free to add to the list ;-). For packages that > > contain e.g. a plugin and some brushes, I would separate them into > > subpackages if it is sensible to do so. If not, I would name the package > > after the main feature (in this case, likely "gimp-plugin-..." > > I think there are two related problems with this approach; from a user's > perspective it's useful to know that a package is a gimp addon, but not > all that useful to know whether it is implemented using a plugin, a > script, brushes, or some combination of them. From a developers point of > view it creates situations where it's not entirely clear how a package > containing several different components should be named, or whether a > package containing several components designed to be used together, but > potentially useful apart should be split or not. There's also the > potential to create inconsistency as people decide differently. > > Essentially the package name is too short to accurately describe the > range of possibilities, so the best approach is to not try, and mislead, > but to simply leave it as 'gimp-addon' and put the details in the > description field. Hmm. I like to keep things nice and tidy and it seems that I've got a serious crush on namespaces ;-). > > Please comment. > > > > Ewan also expressed concern about the proliferation of package > > specific naming guidelines. Tell me what you think about that as well. > > > In general I think the existing naming guidelines for addons work pretty > well, and it's only worth making an exception if there's a really good > case, such as pre-existing convention (e.g. CPAN naming for perl > modules), or where a single 'parent' has so many addons that it's useful > to classify them. I don't think either of those things are the case > here. Not yet maybe, but there is a huge number of 3rd party GIMP plugins out there that could be packaged. > Short version: I don't think this is a terrible idea, I do think it's > somewhat overkill, and on balance the downsides outweigh the upsides. I'd say unless someone else provides some arguments beyond what I said pro "namespacing" I'd give in to stay with just "gimp-<something>" but I reserve bringing this issue up again if we at some point in the future have a huge number of plugins. Sounds okay? Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
