Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386 --- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-03 07:43:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Well, I don't care how those packages are called (with or without 's'). The > gnome-shell-extensions packages started to name packages like > 'gnome-shell-extensions-XXX'. I thinks that we should go on with this naming Well, I know, I'm one of the maintainers of gnome-shell-extensions ^^. These extensions were built as subpackages of the main package "gnome-shell-extensions", and so named "gnome-shell-extensions-<foo>", as defined in the guidelines. It seemed logical to me to refer to "third-party" extensions under the name "gnome-shell-extension-<bar>", since the package would provide only one extension "a priori". Maybe we'll need to specify guidelines for such extensions, becoming more numerous. > > This extension will be enabled in the Fedora package gnome-shell-extensions > > very soon. To avoid confusions, shouldn't your package named > > gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet, as for the project name? > The other extension will be named gnome-shell-extensions-systemMonitor, this > one here gnome-shell-extension(s)-system-monitor. I think to use 'applet' is a > bad idea because this terminology belongs to Gnome 2.x. Indeed, maybe 'applet' is not appropriate here. It mayb be a case to report upstream. But it doesn't change the fact that the project name is, for the moment, "system-monitor-applet". And logically, the corresponding package should reflect it in its name. Unless there are guidelines describing such a case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review