| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 01/27/2018 11:09 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Hi! |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I noticed that we have 7 packages on Fedora wallpapers with names that |
| 8 |
> > only explain themselves to Fedora insiders: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So traditionally we follow upstream package naming. If we aim to deviate, |
| 12 |
I'd prefer we have strong reasons for it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > ... |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I was thinking that we could merge these packages into a new package |
| 19 |
> > "x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds" or so with slots 11 to 16 so that people |
| 20 |
> > can still install them in parallel, get slot updates automatically, |
| 21 |
> > adding more recent ones does not add more packages, and the package name |
| 22 |
> > explains itself. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why not just make x11-themes/fedora-backgrounds, a metapackage that |
| 26 |
includes all of the packages? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> If you do merge them, then it might be better to use flags for the |
| 31 |
> different sub-packages rather than slots. There's no place to describe |
| 32 |
> what a slot is for, but having a local USE=solar with a corresponding |
| 33 |
> description in metadata.xml is (relatively) discoverable. |
| 34 |
> |
Archives