Nodoka issues

[Martin Sourada]

On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 00:33 +0200, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> Excellent.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=301851
> 
Thanks for that.

> The iconize/maximize/close buttons. Compare:
> http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/images/nodoka-tabs.png
> http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/images/nodoka-tabs2.png
> 
Hm... I see what you mean now. I like the first one better for some
reason, but I can try to make a compromise - I'll play with various
positions and decide what seems best.

> > > 5) The packages are misnamed. They should be gtk2-engine-nodoka,
> > > gnome-theme-nodoka, and metacity-theme-nodoka.
> > > 
> > gtk-engine-nodoka as in gtk-engine-murrine. No point in changing already
> > used naming schemes. 
> 
> It's disheartening to see "they already screwed up" as justification for
> this. But at least it's the truth.
> 
Yep, I dunno whether this naming scheme is screwed up, but I see no
point in using two different schemes in one repo.

> > nodoka-theme-gnome is used because the main name is nodoka theme
> > (similar scheme to beryl-gnome, which is metapackage pulling all gnome
> > related beryl bits in), so I put it in the front, noone mentioned it as
> > an issue in the review request, also there are currently no naming
> > guidelines for that AFAIK.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5ffb4156a1bdf299ace96f48af903a7a
> 
> "If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds
> a new functionality to an existing Fedora 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}."
> 
> I see the parent as being gnome, and the child as being nodoka.
> 
Well, yet never complained about that till now (not a justification).
Better move this part of discussion to -devel (CC-ing).

But from my point of view I see nodoka as the parent and the children
are theme for metacity, theme+engine for gtk2 and gnome metatheme (and
more will hopefully come later), so IMHO it is rather questionable in
this case. And as I used these names in upstream packages as well it
would require a change there as well, because I AFAIK fedora package
name should not differ from upstream name (save for the parent additions
in addons packages).

> > nodoka-metacity-theme as in {echo,tango}-icon-theme.
> 
> Well, that's stretching just a bit. There's a difference between a set
> of icons packaged to create a theme, and a theme for just a single app.
> 
You're probably right there.

Martin

> > I looked at various theme packages that were in the repos and decided on
> > these names after. If there are any guidelines concerning this, please
> > forward me to them, if not it would be good to create ones, what do you
> > think?
> 
> I definitely think this would be a good idea. Plenty of package reviews
> have come and gone with comments about naming, but still we have
> contention, as observed here.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070923/06e139df/attachment.sig>