xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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.

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.

CU
thl