[Fedora-packaging] Re: APPROVED: clearlooks
dag at wieers.com
Mon Mar 21 21:21:37 UTC 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:24 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > clearlooks: An attractive GTK+ 2 engine with a focus on usability
> > >
> > > Clearlooks will transform your GNOME desktop into an attractive looking
> > > and usable environment.
> > >
> > > Reviewers: Jeremy Katz, Michael Schwendt, Ralf Corsepius, Adrian Reber
> > > Maintainer: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > Is it ok to package a Gnome theme as 'clearlooks' when it
> > will become the default theme in Gnome ? If so, wouldn't
> > gnome-themes-clearlooks not be a better name ? Like gnome-themes and
> > gnome-themes-extras already set a precedent.
Ok, I've only subscribed this weekend to fedora-extras. (For some
reason I thought I was already subscribed to every fedora mailinglist,
but I noticed today I'm still missing the buildsystem mailinglist,
sigh) None of these mails seem conclusive on the subject and since I was
subscribed to fedora-packaging I would have expected such a
discussion/decision there probably.
I think package naming is an important (and the first) part of good
packaging and I would hate to see a Gnome theme be packaged like an
application or library. The current guidelines already have some policy
for plugins and extras, so I think this is an obvious extension to that.
The same is true for Gnome (or other) applets. foo-applet could be an
applet for a lot of things, so gnome-applet-foo seems a much better
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
More information about the Fedora-packaging