xorg-x11- packaging prefix

[Kristian Høgsberg]

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.

cheers,
Kristian