Le dimanche 30 juillet 2006 à 11:51 +0200, Bastian Venthur a écrit : > > I'd say it is better to conform to this naming scheme unless there is a > > good reason not to do so. It is just more clear for users. > > I've given some arguments yesterday. The renaming would be painless and > a smooth upgrade without user interaction is possible [1]. This is not the point. The point is to have all engines fit in the same naming scheme. > No I don't see any reasons to split the package. It is intended for KDE > users and provides full functionality as it is for them. Splitting it up > would make things only more complicated. But it would allow to use this engine for non-KDE users. > Maybe some official document describing the features a package must have > to fit into the gtk2-engines naming scheme would help to clear the > situation. /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/engines/libfoo.so If you have such a file, I think it's better to follow the naming scheme. There isn't any kind of policy on this matter anyway, and given the small number of such packages, we don't need one. > Please note that I'm not against the naming schemes. More than the half > of my packages follows the KDE-naming scheme. But in this case I just > don't see gtk-qt-engines fit into the current scheme. Frankly, I don't care much; this is your package, you name it as you want to. You're asking for advice from GNOME people, and my *personal* advice is to not change the package name. You shouldn't waste your time trying to convince me, because even if you do, that won't change anything :) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=