On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 12:04 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hm, in retrospect, I absolutely agree with Paul, libgnome-games-support > or libgnome-games would indeed have been better names. I don't want to > change it at this point, though, because it's been packaged by several > other distros (Fedora, openSUSE, Arch) for roughly a year now, all of > which chose to name the package libgames-support. I'd prefer to keep > the upstream name in sync with these downstreams, and I think it's > unlikely that another project would want to use this name. Is your reasoning here that renaming would be additional work and you don't want to impose that work on downstreams? In Debian at least the renaming process is a fairly minimal amount of work so I'd be surprised if the same didn't also apply to the other distros. Or is it about the time needed to co-ordinate this change? I expect that would be minimal too, probably a thread of a few emails at worst. > I think it's reasonable for Debian to use a different package name if > it prefers, but do consider the value in matching all the other > distros. Also, although I don't expect non-GNOME games to use the > library, it might be a good option for non-GNOME games that use GTK+ 3. Perhaps libgtk3-games-support would be a better option if you intend it to be more GTK+ 3 oriented than GNOME oriented. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part