Re: Theme packages ?
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:51, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Trust me, you can't call it Bluecurve. ;-)
> >
> > I'm hoping to make a release with a "configure --with-name=Wonderland"
> > type of feature. I'm not sure I can convince automake to do this, but
> > worth a try. Otherwise you probably have to do "make install" and then
> > a lot of mv/sed action as part of the packaging. I could actually put
> > the mv/sed action in our spec file and leave the tarball name as
> > "Wonderland" instead of "Bluecurve"
>
> So, it's really going to be a pain to have some people's machines calling
> this theme "Bluecurve" and others calling it "Wonderland". As an independent
> theme author, how can I base an enhanced theme on it reliably?
>
> It looks like any theme I write based on Wonderland will break for Red Hat
> users, so *they* will be the second class citizens in this instance. It may
> get to a point that Red Hat users will install Wonderland just to be
> compatible with everyone else.
>
> I grok the issues, and I accept Red Hat's use of trademarks, but this
> particular use does create a (small) world of pain... and I can't see a
> technical solution on the horizon.
Hmm, well, no derivative can be called BlueCurve; only the single
original theme can be called BlueCurve. I don't really see where it
could get confusing; unless you mean theme engines? In that case, one
can have an engine called bluecurve and an engine called wonderland
installed at the same time; just so long as authors only make themes
that use the wonderland engine, it should be good, no?
>
> - Jeff
--
Sean Middleditch <elanthis@awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
Reply to: