[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217





--- Comment #21 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at gmail.com>  2009-07-18 15:29:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. geany-plugins-foo)
> > > rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg.
> > > claws-mail-plugins-*).
> > 
> > Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be "plugin", because each
> > package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as well in
> > the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in the
> > meantime, so I agree with you.  
> 
> Hm. Spurred on by that comment, I just did a yum list \*plugin\* and there is a
> usage of both foo-plugin-bar and foo-plugins-bar. So, I am no longer sure which
> is correct! I can certainly see that your rationale for "-plugin-" makes sense.
> Perhaps this is a case of "leave it up to the packager". It's probably
> something that the FPC should standardize, as well.  

Jonathan was a bit faster with answering than me, so in the release 5 which I
just posted the sub-packages got renamed to geany-plugins-*. I totally agree
with Christophs point of view. It definitely does make sense to name the
subpackages geany-plugin-* since they include just one plugin at a time (except
geany-plugins-addons, in fact). Anyway I tend to leave the naming
geany-plugins-* since the upstream project is named "geany-plugins".

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.