Re: [PATCH 4/5] gnu: Add emotion-generic-players

["Tomáš Čech" <sleep_walker@suse.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2451 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:47:20PM +0800, 宋文武 wrote:
>Tomáš Čech <sleep_walker@suse.cz> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> thanks for review.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:23:27AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>just a quick comment on the descriptions. It would be good to write full
>>>sentences, for instance:
>>>
>>>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:31:12AM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
>>>> +     "Set of generic media players allowing to open video files through emotion. Useful only for emotion library based applications.")
>>>
>>>"Emotion Generic Players provides/consists of/is a set of generic ...
>>>It is useful only for ...".
>>
>> I agree that sentences may be better, I only suck at it. I'll try
>> to improvide it  or I can accept any recommendations in the meantime.
>>
>>>I think it would also be good to expand a bit where possible, and to introduce
>>>the word "enlightenment" in each of these packages (by replacing "EFL" with
>>>"Enlightenment Foundation Libraries",
>>
>> I do agree that use of "Enlightenment Foundation Libraries" instead of
>> "EFL" could make it more enjoyable to read, but we could expand also
>> Gimp toolkit, Tool Command Language, ...
>>
>> Those who would need such these packages will know and it won't help
>> to others anyway.
>>
>> Synopsis of efl package will show you "Enlightenment Foundation Libraries".
>>
>>>for instance, or adding a sentence like
>>>"It is part of the Enlightenment desktop environment").
>>
>> Enlightenment is using the same libraries (they were developed for
>> Enlightenment) but the libraries are much more generic. It's like
>> relationship between Qt and KDE, only with reversed history order.
>>
>>>Maybe call the file enlightenment.scm?
>>
>> I believe efl.scm is more accurate as the packages there would be EFL
>> based but not necessarily Enlightenment related.
>Sorry, I didn't notice this line. (for my comment about terminology).
>
>Yes, this make sense.  But I think it's more clear to make packages
>from enlightenment.org go into enlightenment.scm, while packages not
>from enlightenment.org but based on EFL into seperated files.

I'm afraid it is still quite optimistic POV, there is not that big
number of EFL based applications worth of packaging.

http://edevel.tumblr.com/post/98156942204

But it seems that the filename is really important to you all so I'll
change the name.

S_W

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]