xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:05:03AM -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 12:58 +0200, dragoran wrote:
> >>>Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>>Should packages with source from outside of the xorg-x11 tree carry
> >>>>this prefix (e.g. ivtv, nvidia, ati, etc)? E.g. is this a prefix like
> >>>>often used "for <prefix>" or is it a cendor prefix, e.g. "by
> >>>><prefix>"?
> >>>>
> >>>>How would a 3rd party driver package be best named?
> >>>>xorg-x11-drv-<driver> or <3rd-party-vendor>-drv-<driver>?
> >>>>  
> >>>I would say use
> >>>
> >>>xorg-x11-drv-<driver>
> >>>
> >>>the second one only confuses users.
> >>but xorg-x11 is the name of the upstream vendor, and probably
> >>trademarked or close to that. So I would suggest to not do that; even if
> >>it's not a legal trademark, it makes sure that users realize where it
> >>comes from (and thus where to report bugs ;)
> >
> >Which brings us back to the question, does the prefix really imply "by
> ><prefix>" or "for <prefix>". Usually in packaging practice
> >"<prefix>-foo" means foo built for <prefix>, e.g. the miriads of
> >perl-XXX packages, now python-XXX, too, java-XXX, gkrellm-XXX, and all
> >other module- or plugin-type packages.
> >
> >I don't mind either way, I just want to hear a clear statement from
> >the X11 packaging folks. Personally I tend to hear the sound of the
> >vendor in it, but I see many folks suggesting to use it as a domain
> >prefix. That's why I'm bringing it up.
> 
> It's used in a 'by' sense, notice that we have other out of tree drivers 
> in the distribution already: synaptics and linuxwacom.

OK, thanks, that was what I was looking for. So oot drivers have free
nomenclature (e.g. following the project's name), and when (if) they
enter xorg-x11 they become canonicalized to xorg-x11-drv-foo.

Maybe I should toss it to fedoraproject.org's wiki somehwere.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060504/3353ba76/attachment.sig>