2:30 a.m.
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named
tex-something
instead of
tetex-something
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with
tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them
Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
--
Pat
3:55 a.m.
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named
tex-something
instead of
tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
The packages are latex packages after all...
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with
tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them
Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
As soon as tetex is gone the name tetex- will be weird. The funny part is
that we only have this problem because we have named the packages not
following our general guidelines (packages are named after the language, not
the implementation). ;-)
--
Pat
--
José Abílio
4:02 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:55:00AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I propose tex packages to be named
> tex-something
> instead of
> tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
latex is a subset of TeX. For example tetex-tex4ht works for tex and
latex.
--
Pat
4:13 a.m.
On Thursday 30 August 2007 10:02:57 Patrice Dumas wrote:
latex is a subset of TeX. For example tetex-tex4ht works for tex and
latex.
I was thinking about context¹ modules and to have a way to distinguish them.
But it there are modules that work with tex and not latex then the point is
moot, it is not worth to have yet another category.
--
Pat
¹ with the proper capitalisation that I always forget
--
José Abílio
5:17 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:55:00AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 30 August 2007 08:30:53 Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I propose tex packages to be named
> tex-something
> instead of
> tetex-something
Why not latex-something instead?
The packages are latex packages after all...
> I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with
> tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them
> Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
As soon as tetex is gone the name tetex- will be weird. The funny part is
that we only have this problem because we have named the packages not
following our general guidelines (packages are named after the language, not
the implementation). ;-)
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be
sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of
them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with
already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
Jindrich
--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/
5:36 a.m.
On Thursday 30 August 2007 11:17:44 Jindrich Novy wrote:
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should
be
sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have
many of them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid
conficts with already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix
*-(la)tex is ok IMO.
Jindrich
tex is a programming language, so IMHO we should follow the same rules as used
for other programming languages, prefixing the package name with the language
name.
--
José Abílio
7:53 a.m.
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> wrote:
Hello,
I propose tex packages to be named
tex-something
instead of
tetex-something
I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with
tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them
Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
Please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming
which I put together a number of months ago (and mentioned on list) -
feel free to edit and add suggestions.
Jonathan.
10:29 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:53:14PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I propose tex packages to be named
> tex-something
> instead of
> tetex-something
>
> I also think that it is not worth renaming existing packages with
> tetex-, at least for now, maybe later, but instead have them
> Provides: tex-something = %{version}-%{release}
Please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/TeXNaming
which I put together a number of months ago (and mentioned on list) -
feel free to edit and add suggestions.
I remembered something but I was too lazy to search ;-)
I think that there are 2 distinct issues that are raised in your
proposal
* tex related package names
* virtual requires/provides
I think that they should be discussed apart. The second issue could be
solved simply without the packaging commitee ruling, but by asking
Jindrich to add the virtual provide. Then the use of this provide could
be advocated in the guidelines.
I suggest discussing the virtual provides in one of the texlive
submissions.
For the tex related package names, my personnal point of view would be
not to distinguish tex and latex add-ons (at least in the name). I have
a slight preference for prepending tex- to all the tex/latex related
packages.
--
Pat
11:29 a.m.
On 30/08/2007, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> wrote:
I think that there are 2 distinct issues that are raised in your
proposal
* tex related package names
* virtual requires/provides
I think that they should be discussed apart. The second issue could be
solved simply without the packaging commitee ruling, but by asking
Jindrich to add the virtual provide. Then the use of this provide could
be advocated in the guidelines.
Yep.
I suggest discussing the virtual provides in one of the texlive
submissions.
OK.
For the tex related package names, my personnal point of view would
be
not to distinguish tex and latex add-ons (at least in the name). I have
a slight preference for prepending tex- to all the tex/latex related
packages.
Yes - I favour that too, but put other suggestions up there for consideration.
--
Pat
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Prefix packages written in C/C++ with C-, CXX- (was: tex related packages names)
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should
be
sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of
them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with
already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit
silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for
resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups:
tag.
Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
6:04 a.m.
New subject: Prefix packages written in C/C++ with C-, CXX- (was: tex related packages names)
On 31/08/2007, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)atrpms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:17:44PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> How about removing the prefix completely? Package description should be
> sufficient to figure out it ships a TeX related stuff and we don't have many of
> them currently. I see the only purpose of the prefix to avoid conficts with
> already existing packages, in that case (la)tex-* or suffix *-(la)tex is ok IMO.
You'd have my vote for that. I find the overprefixing a bit
silly - next we'll have C-glibc. Prefixing should be used for
resolving ambiguous situations, not as a replacement for the Groups:
tag.
Oh yes, the subject is just to catch reading eyes.
Thing is, (la)tex add on packages are frequently named with rather
generic names, and so there is a very real world need for a prefix, I
would argue.... eg. preview, prosper, unicode, bytefield (all current
tetex add-ons)... I could imagine other programs chosing these names
too. It seems to be a fact that programmers lack originality in naming
:)
6082
days inactive
6083
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Axel Thimm -
Jindrich Novy -
Jonathan Underwood -
José Abílio Matos -
Patrice Dumas