xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Mike A. Harris]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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>"?

No, they should not use the xorg-x11 prefix, nor Xorg, etc.  Only
software which is officially released by the X.Org foundation should
contain the X.Org name/trademark, etc. as far as I understand.


> How would a 3rd party driver package be best named?

For the other open source drivers we include for the Xorg server which
are not part of the Xorg X11 distribution itself, we name them the
same name their upstream project uses.  ie: The "linuxwacom" project
provides the "linuxwacom" driver, which we package as "linuxwacom" rpm
package name.  The same thing is done for the synaptics input driver,
as it is also not part of X.Org X11.

There is currently no standardization outside of X.Org as to how
to name driver CVS/git/svn/etc. repositories, nor tarball names,
rpm package names, etc. so it is more or less up to the project or
vendor how to name their software.  It is recommended though to
avoid using the X.Org name both to clearly indicate to users that
the software is not part of the X.Org project, and to honour the
X.Org trademark.[1]

> xorg-x11-drv-<driver> or <3rd-party-vendor>-drv-<driver>?

Not xorg-x11-drv-*, as that suggests to users that the software came
from X.Org, which is untrue if the software did not come from X.Org.

Any other naming is probably sufficient, such as:

fglrx-$version-$release.src.rpm
nvidia-$version-$release.src.rpm

etc..





-- 
Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
                       Proud Canadian.