xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Axel Thimm]

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.
-- 
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/20060503/fe6b9c6a/attachment.sig>