From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Raghav Gururajan" Subject: bug#35586: GNOME Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 06:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: <7a8b3492f9882d4179cb114136de7e92@disroot.org> References: <87zhnzfkz6.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hNtc4-0006T4-Vt for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2019 02:30:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hNtc3-0006uT-JH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2019 02:30:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hNtc3-0006u6-81 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2019 02:30:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hNtc2-00071t-SV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2019 02:30:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: rekado@elephly.net, clement@lassieur.org, me@tobias.gr Cc: 35586@debbugs.gnu.org Hello!=0A=0ARecently, I have been given this link (https://wiki.gnome.org= /Design/Apps) which lists all GNOME Core Applications that are to be adde= d to guix's gnome package.=0A=0AWhether or not to do this, I think the pa= ckage with the name "gnome" in any distribution should always reflect the= vanilla gnome suite released by GNOME Project. Any modification to it, I= think, should be packaged under different name like "gnome-minimal" or g= nome-extras" etc. This can be a good standard.=0A=0AMy suggestion is,=0Ag= nome --> With All Core Apps=0Agnome-minimal --> Without Any Core Apps (Pr= ovides only xorg/wayland, dm, wm, menus, drivers, services etc.)=0A=0A** = INFO: Core Apps can be found at https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps. **=0A= =0AAlso, based on the above, I think we also need to create/enable new va= lue "gnome-minimal" for the data type "gnome-desktop-configuration" of th= e variable "gnome-desktop-service-type". Value "gnome" can still be defau= lt though. Power users can change the value to "gnome-minimal".=0A=0AThis= can provide good modularity and thus provides choices to users. For exam= ple, 1) If a user needs full-blown GNOME, "gnome" can be chosen, 2) If a = user needs only minimal GNOME, "gnome-minimal" can be chosen, 3) If a use= r needs minimal GNOME with select core apps, "gnome-minimal" can be chose= n under service and individual needed core apps can be added under system= packages.=0A=0AAlso, it would be a good standard to use generic names fo= r packaging as recommended at https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/= 21/gnome-3-22-core-apps. Other alias-names/project names can be included = in package's description. =0A=0AThank you!=0A=0ARegards,=0ARG.=0A=0AMay 6= , 2019 7:30 PM, "Raghav Gururajan" wrote:=0A=0A> T-G-R= !=0A> =0A> Thanks for your email. I understand what you mentioned. I came= across this link=0A> (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnom= e-3-22-core-apps), where the dev(s) recommend to=0A> use generic names wh= ile packaging GNOME Core Apps. :)=0A> =0A> I think it is better to use ge= neric names for package names and include other aliases/project-names=0A>= in the package tagline and/or package description.=0A> =0A> May 6, 2019 = 7:20 PM, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice" wrote:=0A> =0A>> Raghav,= =0A>> =0A>> Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm sure there's plenty to = be=0A>> improved in how we package a large collection of software like=0A= >> GNOME in an intuitive way.=0A>> =0A>> Raghav Gururajan wrote:=0A>> =0A= >>> The following gnome core applications have already been included=0A>>= > in=0A>>> guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming?=0A>>> =0A>= >> epiphany --> gnome-web=0A>> =0A>> Using =E2=80=98correct=E2=80=99 here= is a bit strong.=0A>> =0A>> ~ =CE=BB guix install epiphany=0A>> ~ =CE=BB= gnome-web=0A>> bash: gnome-web: command not found=0A>> ~ =CE=BB epiphany= =0A>> # browsin' time=0A>> =0A>> While we don't blindly name packages aft= er the binaries they=0A>> provide, of course, a look at the project's own= publications=0A>> doesn't reduce the confusion. Ironic.=0A>> =0A>> =E2= =80=9CWeb is the web browser for the GNOME desktop and for elementary=0A>= > OS,=0A>> based on the popular WebKit engine. It offers a simple, clean,= =0A>> beautiful view of the web featuring first-class GNOME and=0A>> Pant= heon=0A>> desktop integration. Its code name is Epiphany.=0A>> =0A>> You = may install Web from the software repositories of most=0A>> Linux=0A>> op= erating systems, where it is normally packaged as=0A>> "epiphany-browser"= or "epiphany". =E2=80=9D[0]=0A>> =0A>> The README[1] mainly, but not exc= lusively, talks about =E2=80=98Epiphany=E2=80=99.=0A>> Even the two URLs = balance each other out. I don't think there's=0A>> enough here to justify= gross renaming, and in the name of all=0A>> that's holy let's avoid anot= her mass renaming incident.=0A>> =0A>> Personally, I think adding =E2=80= =98GNOME Foo=E2=80=99 to the synopses of all=0A>> these packages is suffi= cient (epiphany does this by coincidence,=0A>> calling itself the =E2=80= =98GNOME web browser=E2=80=99). Eventually, this could=0A>> be another us= e for the separate (G)UI display name field as=0A>> suggested in the game= s thread. :-)=0A>> =0A>> Package names aren't opaque identifiers, but the= y can be a little=0A>> technical IMO.=0A>> =0A>> Kind regards,=0A>> =0A>>= T G-R=0A>> =0A>> [0]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web=0A>> [1]: https://= github.com/GNOME/epiphany