I have seen some of the GNOME Shell extensions in the repos with the names gnome-shell-extensions and others with gnome-shell-extension. A naming standard should be established, I would suggest that each package contains a single extension, so the name sans "s" would be most correct. In the future if a meta package was created to be calling multiple extensions then "extensions" would be more correct.
-- Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob@fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | | http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:30 +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
I have seen some of the GNOME Shell extensions in the repos with the names gnome-shell-extensions and others with gnome-shell-extension. A naming standard should be established, I would suggest that each package contains a single extension, so the name sans "s" would be most correct. In the future if a meta package was created to be calling multiple extensions then "extensions" would be more correct.
I agree. As far as i can tell, this is already true for themes. So extensions should follow the same pattern.
But, what about nagios plugins? Each single package is named nagios-plugins-* while the package holds only one plugin, with the exception of nagios-plugins.{arch} and nagios-plugins-all.{arch}
regards,
Léon
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:30 +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
I have seen some of the GNOME Shell extensions in the repos with the names gnome-shell-extensions and others with gnome-shell-extension. A naming standard should be established, I would suggest that each package contains a single extension, so the name sans "s" would be most correct. In the future if a meta package was created to be calling multiple extensions then "extensions" would be more correct.
Some reviewers already tried to harmonize this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386#c1
Using this approach: """ These extensions were built as subpackages of the main package "gnome-shell-extensions", and so named "gnome-shell-extensions-<foo>", as defined in the guidelines. It seemed logical to me to refer to "third-party" extensions under the name "gnome-shell-extension-<bar>", since the package would provide only one extension "a priori". Maybe we'll need to specify guidelines for such extensions, becoming more numerous. """ (see comment 3 of the same bug report).
This sounds like a valid approach to me.
Regards, Pierre
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Léon Keijser -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Robert 'Bob' Jensen