On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:24 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:

...

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:

...

clearlooks: An attractive GTK+ 2 engine with a focus on usability

Clearlooks will transform your GNOME desktop into an attractive looking and usable environment.

Reviewers: Jeremy Katz, Michael Schwendt, Ralf Corsepius, Adrian Reber Maintainer: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams

Is it ok to package a Gnome theme as 'clearlooks' when it will become the default theme in Gnome ? If so, wouldn't gnome-themes-clearlooks not be a better name ? Like gnome-themes and gnome-themes-extras already set a precedent.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00317.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00453.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00569.html

Ok, I've only subscribed this weekend to fedora-extras. (For some reason I thought I was already subscribed to every fedora mailinglist, but I noticed today I'm still missing the buildsystem mailinglist, sigh) None of these mails seem conclusive on the subject and since I was subscribed to fedora-packaging I would have expected such a discussion/decision there probably.

I think package naming is an important (and the first) part of good packaging and I would hate to see a Gnome theme be packaged like an application or library. The current guidelines already have some policy for plugins and extras, so I think this is an obvious extension to that.

The same is true for Gnome (or other) applets. foo-applet could be an applet for a lot of things, so gnome-applet-foo seems a much better scheme.

-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]