[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#123456: ITP: eazel-engine -- Crux theme for GTK+

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:50:34 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:29:22 +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> > This is the upstream (and source) package name, binary will most likely be
> > gtk-theme-crux.
> why not gtk-engines-crux?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:36:28PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > * Package name    : eazel-engine
> > 
> > This is the upstream (and source) package name, binary will most likely be
> > gtk-theme-crux.
> This actually is a real engine, not just a theme, so i'd prefer the name
> gtk-engines-eazel or gtk-engines-crux

About these names: check the thread on debian-devel a couple of messages
before my ITP (subject: [RFC] GTK+ theme naming).
Daniel Burrows (who has packaged a couple of other themes) seemed to agree
that gtk-engines-* is probably (most likely) not the best name for these

> Theme packages can easily be created with a special package (sorry,
> don't know the name right now, theme-converters or something like that)
> The Engines do contain real binary code afaik; so it's useful to have
> them as packages.
> Ordinary Themes just use one of the default engines and modify options
> and graphics, they can easily be installed by the users themselves;
> So i do like the idea of doing "apt-get install gtk-engines-*" to
> install all available gtk engines; so people actually can use any theme
> they want and install it themselves by extracting a tgz file; so they
> don't need to compile anything.
> So i'd suggest using gtk-engines-* for any gtk theme containing real
> binary libraries; maybe gtk-theme-* for config file based themes only.
> Maybe i'm wrong and eazel-engine does not require compilation?

No, you're correct - it does require compilation.
Hmmm... maybe it would be useful to put the actual engine and theme in a
separate package. (and that would probably make most sense, wrt. naming of
the various binary packages too)
The only downside of this is "package bloat" (more and smaller packages).

I'll propose this on the thread I started.



The New Testament offers the basis for modern computer coding theory, in the
form of an affirmation of the binary number system:
"But let your communication be Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
 than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37)
	-- Daniel Burrows

Reply to: