xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:50:21AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 04.05.2006, 02:52 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:39:42AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:05:03AM -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > > > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > >On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > >>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 12:58 +0200, dragoran wrote:
> > > > >>>Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > >>>>Should packages with source from outside of the xorg-x11 tree carry
> > > > >>>>this prefix (e.g. ivtv, nvidia, ati, etc)? E.g. is this a prefix like
> > > > >>>>often used "for <prefix>" or is it a cendor prefix, e.g. "by
> > > > >>>><prefix>"?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>How would a 3rd party driver package be best named?
> > > > >>>>xorg-x11-drv-<driver> or <3rd-party-vendor>-drv-<driver>?
> > > > >>>>  
> > > > >>>I would say use
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>xorg-x11-drv-<driver>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>the second one only confuses users.
> > > > >>but xorg-x11 is the name of the upstream vendor, and probably
> > > > >>trademarked or close to that. So I would suggest to not do that; even if
> > > > >>it's not a legal trademark, it makes sure that users realize where it
> > > > >>comes from (and thus where to report bugs ;)
> > > > >
> > > > >Which brings us back to the question, does the prefix really imply "by
> > > > ><prefix>" or "for <prefix>". Usually in packaging practice
> > > > >"<prefix>-foo" means foo built for <prefix>, e.g. the miriads of
> > > > >perl-XXX packages, now python-XXX, too, java-XXX, gkrellm-XXX, and all
> > > > >other module- or plugin-type packages.
> > > > >I don't mind either way, I just want to hear a clear statement from
> > > > >the X11 packaging folks. Personally I tend to hear the sound of the
> > > > >vendor in it, but I see many folks suggesting to use it as a domain
> > > > >prefix. That's why I'm bringing it up.
> > > > It's used in a 'by' sense, notice that we have other out of tree drivers 
> > > > in the distribution already: synaptics and linuxwacom.
> > > OK, thanks, that was what I was looking for. So oot drivers have free
> > > nomenclature (e.g. following the project's name), and when (if) they
> > > enter xorg-x11 they become canonicalized to xorg-x11-drv-foo.
> > > Maybe I should toss it to fedoraproject.org's wiki somehwere.
> > I've added an entry to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
> > 
> > "Addon Packages (x11 drivers)"
> 
> No offense, but I removed it again. Changes to these kind of documents
> are best (read "best" -- not "have to be") discussed with FESCo, on
> fedora-packaging and/or with spot, the original author and maintainer of
> this document and the Packaging Guidelines in general.

No problem, discuss it in FESCo and then add it again. :)
I've added fedora-packaging and spot in the Cc.

> BTW: Shortly before FC5 was released there was a irc-discussion
> regarding the package naming of the proprietary nvidia and fglrx
> drivers. It was on #fedora-extras (spot was involved in that discussion,
> too) -- the consensus was "use prefix xorg-x11-drv even for non-Xorg
> drivers". And that's what livna did for FC5 then.
> 
> We should probably discuss this during the next FESCo-Meeting with spot.

We know that Fedora Extras and Fedora Core don't yet have identical
packaging rules, but they are converging. Wrt new packaging rules one
should discuss it with both sides, e.g. ask the x11 maintainers at FC
who introduced that prefix what the purpose of the prefix is like done
in this thread.

Creating new divergent views isn't helpful, I'd say either convince
FC's x11 folks to change their mind or follow along.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060504/e9eb0de7/attachment.sig>