On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 00:33 +0200, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > Excellent. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=301851 > Thanks for that. > The iconize/maximize/close buttons. Compare: > http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/images/nodoka-tabs.png > http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/images/nodoka-tabs2.png > Hm... I see what you mean now. I like the first one better for some reason, but I can try to make a compromise - I'll play with various positions and decide what seems best. > > > 5) The packages are misnamed. They should be gtk2-engine-nodoka, > > > gnome-theme-nodoka, and metacity-theme-nodoka. > > > > > gtk-engine-nodoka as in gtk-engine-murrine. No point in changing already > > used naming schemes. > > It's disheartening to see "they already screwed up" as justification for > this. But at least it's the truth. > Yep, I dunno whether this naming scheme is screwed up, but I see no point in using two different schemes in one repo. > > nodoka-theme-gnome is used because the main name is nodoka theme > > (similar scheme to beryl-gnome, which is metapackage pulling all gnome > > related beryl bits in), so I put it in the front, noone mentioned it as > > an issue in the review request, also there are currently no naming > > guidelines for that AFAIK. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5ffb4156a1bdf299ace96f48af903a7a > > "If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds > a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful > on its own, its name should reflect this fact. > > The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its > name, in the format: %{parent}-%{child}." > > I see the parent as being gnome, and the child as being nodoka. > Well, yet never complained about that till now (not a justification). Better move this part of discussion to -devel (CC-ing). But from my point of view I see nodoka as the parent and the children are theme for metacity, theme+engine for gtk2 and gnome metatheme (and more will hopefully come later), so IMHO it is rather questionable in this case. And as I used these names in upstream packages as well it would require a change there as well, because I AFAIK fedora package name should not differ from upstream name (save for the parent additions in addons packages). > > nodoka-metacity-theme as in {echo,tango}-icon-theme. > > Well, that's stretching just a bit. There's a difference between a set > of icons packaged to create a theme, and a theme for just a single app. > You're probably right there. Martin > > I looked at various theme packages that were in the repos and decided on > > these names after. If there are any guidelines concerning this, please > > forward me to them, if not it would be good to create ones, what do you > > think? > > I definitely think this would be a good idea. Plenty of package reviews > have come and gone with comments about naming, but still we have > contention, as observed here. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
