bug#35586: GNOME

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]

Raghav,

Thanks for taking a look at this.  I'm sure there's plenty to be 
improved in how we package a large collection of software like 
GNOME in an intuitive way.

Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> The following gnome core applications have already been included 
> in
> guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming?
>
> epiphany --> gnome-web

Using ‘correct’ here is a bit strong.

  ~ λ guix install epiphany
  ~ λ gnome-web
  bash: gnome-web: command not found
  ~ λ epiphany
  # browsin' time

While we don't blindly name packages after the binaries they 
provide, of course, a look at the project's own publications 
doesn't reduce the confusion.  Ironic.

  “Web is the web browser for the GNOME desktop and for elementary 
  OS,
   based on the popular WebKit engine. It offers a simple, clean,
   beautiful view of the web featuring first-class GNOME and 
   Pantheon
   desktop integration. Its code name is Epiphany.

   You may install Web from the software repositories of most 
   Linux
   operating systems, where it is normally packaged as
   "epiphany-browser" or "epiphany". ”[0]

The README[1] mainly, but not exclusively, talks about ‘Epiphany’. 
Even the two URLs balance each other out.  I don't think there's 
enough here to justify gross renaming, and in the name of all 
that's holy let's avoid another mass renaming incident.

Personally, I think adding ‘GNOME Foo’ to the synopses of all 
these packages is sufficient (epiphany does this by coincidence, 
calling itself the ‘GNOME web browser’).  Eventually, this could 
be another use for the separate (G)UI display name field as 
suggested in the games thread. :-)

Package names aren't opaque identifiers, but they can be a little 
technical IMO.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web
[1]: https://github.com/GNOME/epiphany

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]