On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:02 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:32 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > > I would go for: ladspa-plugins-NAME > > Yes, I think that's better. > > > What if the name of the package already contains "plugins"? > > Then one could argue that the string "plugins" is simply moved to a > different place. > > Arguably, ladspa-NAME could also be acceptable and it would nicely take > care of the special case you mentioned. I'd like to push the existing Planet CCRMA plugin collections to extras so we should agree on naming before I get started (I'd prefer to switch names only once - I would have to include proper obsoletes/provides so that the extra packages have a clean upgrade path for current Planet CCRMA users)... I currently have (at Planet CCRMA): cmt -> ladspa-plugins-cmt mcp-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-mcp rev-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-rev vco-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-vco fil-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-fil amb-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-amb blop -> ladspa-plugins-blop tap-plugins -> laspa-plugins-tap caps -> ladspa-plugins-caps pvoc -> ladspa-plugins-pvoc (and swh which is already in extras) There are a lot of "original package names" that are already NAME-plugins, so maybe it would be better to go with the crowd and agree on: ladspa-NAME where NAME includes plugins or not depending on the original name. Or even better: ladspa-NAME-plugins where you add "plugins" if it is not already there. This last one does sound better to my ears. -- Fernando _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
