Re: [RFC] GTK+ theme naming
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:07:25AM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> Right, I overlooked that fact (not packaging no-engine themes) in my
> original post. From that POV it makes already more sense to have the
> gtk-engines-* names.
>
> What I (right now) think makes most sense, is splitting the engine themes up
> into an gtk-engine and a gtk-theme package. I know that it does at least for
> the one I'd like to package, because the theme is known as Crux but the
> engine is called "eazel engine" - now what should a single gtk-engine
> package be called?
> Maybe the other engine packages should be split up as well in an engine
> package containing only the library and another with the default theme from
> that engine.
I would call it gtk-engines-eazel, and include the crux theme.
Mention that the crux theme is included in both the short and long
descriptions of the package.
gtk-engines-eazel: The Eazel GTK theme engine, including the Crux theme
>
> Comments? Does this add too much packages to the archive?
Yes, it would.
> And how about the naming for engine packages? Would it be bad if I break the
> habit and call it gtk-engine-eazel instead of using "-engines-", since it
> does only contain one?
Well, it's silly, isn't it. the -engines wasn't there, AFAICS, to
make the point that the package had more than one engine, but simply
that the upstream source package was called gtk-engines.
Then it go adopted as a naming convention by a couple of other
packages which aren't from that source.
My inclination is to stick with the slightly daft convention, for
consistency.
Jules
Reply to: