xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi!

Reply out-of-order

Am Montag, den 08.05.2006, 22:09 -0400 schrieb Mike A. Harris:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> Houston, we've lost communication!

Yes, that's why we IMHO need a real "Fedora Packaging Board" that
handles such things. Otherwise we run into a situation where
foo at redhat.com and foo at im.interested.in.fedora say foobar while
bar at redhat.com and bar at im.interested.in.fedora say barfoo. :-/

> > 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.
> 
> I'm rather surprised about that.  I wasn't on such mailing lists, but
> since I was the one who chose the naming, I'd have expected to have
> at least been contacted by someone to determine what the package
> naming rationale was.

Yes, that would have been the best. But I don't think the end result
would have been different. Here are some quotes from the IRC discussion:

x> | if we would package gatos-driver or some other external drivers for X what naming scheme would we use?
x> | xorg-x11-drv-foo?
x> | But that would give users the impression that this driver is from xorg :-|
x> | the repo-that-must-not-be-named is working on updated nvidia and ati packages for fc5 and is unsure how to name the packages :-|
y> | x: i think xorg-x11-drv-foo is the most obvious answer
y> | x: since we don't ever assume that the perl-* packages come from perl.org
y> | it would be erroneous to assume that the xorg-* packages come from xorg
y> | just that they are reliant upon, and add functionality to perl, or xorg
x> | thx spot; the repo-that-must-not-be-named will then probably use xorg-x11-drv-nvidia and xorg-x11-drv-fglrx in the future
y> | works for me.

BTW, the relevant part of the package naming guidelines (that are for
Core and Extras these days) starts at:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5ffb4156a1bdf299ace96f48af903a7a
 
Quote:

> Addon Packages (General)
> If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or
> adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras
> 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}

There is more in the wiki. Yes, I know that some people don't like this
scheme. But at least one general scheme is better than a lot of
different schemes.

CU
thl