On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:24 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > > clearlooks: An attractive GTK+ 2 engine with a focus on usability > > > > > > Clearlooks will transform your GNOME desktop into an attractive looking > > > and usable environment. > > > > > > Reviewers: Jeremy Katz, Michael Schwendt, Ralf Corsepius, Adrian Reber > > > Maintainer: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams > > > > Is it ok to package a Gnome theme as 'clearlooks' when it > > will become the default theme in Gnome ? If so, wouldn't > > gnome-themes-clearlooks not be a better name ? Like gnome-themes and > > gnome-themes-extras already set a precedent. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00317.html > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00453.html > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00569.html Ok, I've only subscribed this weekend to fedora-extras. (For some reason I thought I was already subscribed to every fedora mailinglist, but I noticed today I'm still missing the buildsystem mailinglist, sigh) None of these mails seem conclusive on the subject and since I was subscribed to fedora-packaging I would have expected such a discussion/decision there probably. I think package naming is an important (and the first) part of good packaging and I would hate to see a Gnome theme be packaged like an application or library. The current guidelines already have some policy for plugins and extras, so I think this is an obvious extension to that. The same is true for Gnome (or other) applets. foo-applet could be an applet for a lot of things, so gnome-applet-foo seems a much better scheme. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
