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

Re: RFC: Naming guidelines for packages extending GIMP



On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 22:15 +0100, Bruno Postle wrote:
> On Wed 05-Sep-2007 at 11:28 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > 
> > during the review of the resynthesizer plugin for GIMP
> > [ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250210 ], I asked the
> > package to be named "gimp-plugin-resynthesizer" rather than
> > "gimp-resynthesizer". Ewan brought up the point that there isn't really
> > a naming guideline for it, therefore I'd like to propose one:
> > 
> > For packages specific to GIMP (i.e. not just extensions of a separate
> > application like xsane, ufraw):
> > 
> > Plugins and scripts(*): "gimp-plugin-<name>"
> > Patterns: "gimp-pattern-<name>"
> > Brushes: "gimp-brush-<name>"
> > Themes: "gimp-theme-<name>"
>  
> This makes sense, but how many patterns, brushes and themes are 
> there likely to be?  I agree that plugins and scripts are all just 
> 'plugins' to the end-user and shouldn't be differentiated.
> 
> The fact that this is the first gimp plugin in fedora reminds me 
> that fedora is very weak in this direction - Perhaps an 'imaging 
> SIG' is needed?

Good idea. What do we have to do for that?

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp redhat com
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
 Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  --  B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011


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