bug#35586: GNOME

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

Hello Guix!

Based on the mail-list thread "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-
guix/2019-05/msg00124.html", it appears that there is a bug, where some
GNOME Core Applications are actually packaged in guix but have not been
included in guix's "gnome" package.

So I did [guix search "gnome-*"] and cross-checked the results with
guix's gnome package source (https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
/tree/gnu/packages/gnome.scm?id=v0.16.0-5851-g5f83b5153a#n6422); and
found out that the following gnome core application packages are indeed
packaged in guix, but have not been included in guix's gnome package. 

gnome-calendar
gnome-clocks
gnome-common
gnome-desktop
gnome-dictionary
gnome-doc-utils
gnome-icon-theme
gnome-klotski
gnome-maps
gnome-mime-data
gnome-mines
gnome-mpv
gnome-planner
gnome-screenshot
gnome-shell-extensions
gnome-sudoku
gnome-todo
gnome-tweak-tool
gnome-vfs
gnome-video-effects

The following gnome core applications are also already packaged in guix
but requires correct renaming before adding to guix's gnome package?

rhythmbox --> gnome-music
shotwell --> gnome-photos

The following gnome core applications have already been included in
guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming?

epiphany --> gnome-web
envice --> gnome-documents
eog --> gnome-images
file-roller --> gnome-autoar
gedit --> gnome-text
nautilus --> gnome-files

I really hope if the above modifications are made, it will fulfill the
actual description of guix's gnome package (http://guix.gnu.org/package
s/gnome-3.28.2/). ☺

Thank you!

Regards,
RG.

bug#35586: GNOME

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 02:20:39PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> Hello Guix!
> 
> Based on the mail-list thread "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-
> guix/2019-05/msg00124.html", it appears that there is a bug, where some
> GNOME Core Applications are actually packaged in guix but have not been
> included in guix's "gnome" package.
> 

Thank you for doing something about this!


> found out that the following gnome core application packages are indeed
> packaged in guix, but have not been included in guix's gnome package. 
> 
> gnome-calendar
> gnome-clocks
> gnome-common
> gnome-desktop

gnome-common and gnome-desktop are libraries, not core applications.

> gnome-dictionary
> gnome-doc-utils

gnome-doc-utils is not a core application.

> gnome-icon-theme
> gnome-klotski
> gnome-maps
> gnome-mime-data
> gnome-mines
> gnome-mpv

gnome-mpv is not core.

> gnome-planner
> gnome-screenshot
> gnome-shell-extensions
> gnome-sudoku
> gnome-todo
> gnome-tweak-tool
> gnome-vfs

I don’t quite know, is gnome-vfs the same as gvfs?

> gnome-video-effects
> 

This appears to be a codec pack or something (?), not an application.


> The following gnome core applications are also already packaged in guix
> but requires correct renaming before adding to guix's gnome package?
> 
> rhythmbox --> gnome-music
> shotwell --> gnome-photos
> 

Parabola GNU/Linux-libre packaging shows that these are not the same
app and should not be renamed.

[florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss shotwell
community/shotwell 2:0.30.4-1
    A digital photo organizer designed for the GNOME desktop environment
[florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-photos
extra/gnome-photos 3.32.0-1 (gnome)
    Access, organize, and share your photos on GNOME
[florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss rhythmbox
extra/rhythmbox 3.4.3-1
    Music playback and management application
community/ario 1.6-1
    A GTK client for MPD inspired by Rhythmbox but much lighter and faster
[florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-music
extra/gnome-music 1:3.32.1-1 (gnome)
    Music player and management application


> The following gnome core applications have already been included in
> guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming?
> 
> epiphany --> gnome-web
> envice --> gnome-documents
> eog --> gnome-images
> file-roller --> gnome-autoar
> gedit --> gnome-text
> nautilus --> gnome-files
>

Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by
e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers.


Of course, there are more non-packaged applications.

I also remember
https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/
who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core.

> I really hope if the above modifications are made, it will fulfill the
> actual description of guix's gnome package (http://guix.gnu.org/package
> s/gnome-3.28.2/). ☺
> 

Yes, I agree, that should be the goal.

Regards,
Florian

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

On 5 May 2019 14:52, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 02:20:39PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote: 
> > Hello Guix! 
> > 
> > Based on the mail-list thread "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help- 
> > guix/2019-05/msg00124.html", it appears that there is a bug, where some 
> > GNOME Core Applications are actually packaged in guix but have not been 
> > included in guix's "gnome" package. 
> > 
>

> Thank you for doing something about this! 

No problem :)

>
>
> > found out that the following gnome core application packages are indeed 
> > packaged in guix, but have not been included in guix's gnome package. 
> > 
> > gnome-calendar 
> > gnome-clocks 
> > gnome-common 
> > gnome-desktop 
>

> gnome-common and gnome-desktop are libraries, not core applications. 

Agreed. Are they still relevant to be included?

>
> > gnome-dictionary 
> > gnome-doc-utils 
>

> gnome-doc-utils is not a core application. 

Agreed.

>
> > gnome-icon-theme 
> > gnome-klotski 
> > gnome-maps 
> > gnome-mime-data 
> > gnome-mines 
> > gnome-mpv 
>

> gnome-mpv is not core.

Agreed.

>
> > gnome-planner 
> > gnome-screenshot 
> > gnome-shell-extensions 
> > gnome-sudoku 
> > gnome-todo 
> > gnome-tweak-tool 
> > gnome-vfs 
>

> I don’t quite know, is gnome-vfs the same as gvfs? 

I don't think so. May be this is the reason why WebDAV files added in gnome-online-accounts not showing up in gnome-files.

>
> > gnome-video-effects 
> > 
>

> This appears to be a codec pack or something (?), not an application. 

Not exactly. Provides apps for web cam etc.

>
>
> > The following gnome core applications are also already packaged in guix 
> > but requires correct renaming before adding to guix's gnome package? 
> > 
> > rhythmbox --> gnome-music 
> > shotwell --> gnome-photos 
> > 
>

> Parabola GNU/Linux-libre packaging shows that these are not the same 
> app and should not be renamed. 
>
> [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss shotwell 
> community/shotwell 2:0.30.4-1 
>     A digital photo organizer designed for the GNOME desktop environment 
> [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-photos 
> extra/gnome-photos 3.32.0-1 (gnome) 
>     Access, organize, and share your photos on GNOME 
> [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss rhythmbox 
> extra/rhythmbox 3.4.3-1 
>     Music playback and management application 
> community/ario 1.6-1 
>     A GTK client for MPD inspired by Rhythmbox but much lighter and faster 
> [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-music 
> extra/gnome-music 1:3.32.1-1 (gnome) 
>     Music player and management application 
>
>

Agreed. So they need to packaged and included separately.

> > The following gnome core applications have already been included in 
> > guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming? 
> > 
> > epiphany --> gnome-web 
> > envice --> gnome-documents 
> > eog --> gnome-images 
> > file-roller --> gnome-autoar 
> > gedit --> gnome-text 
> > nautilus --> gnome-files 
> > 

>
> Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by 
> e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers. 
>
>

Hmm, but the app shows up as Web in GNOME.

> Of course, there are more non-packaged applications. 
>
> I also remember 
> https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/ 
> who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core. 
>

What?? How else to enable/disable plugins/extensions in GNOME?

> > I really hope if the above modifications are made, it will fulfill the 
> > actual description of guix's gnome package (http://guix.gnu.org/package 
> > s/gnome-3.28.2/). ☺ 
> > 
>
> Yes, I agree, that should be the goal. 
>
> Regards, 
> Florian 

bug#35586: GNOME

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:23:27PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> On 5 May 2019 14:52, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> > Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by 
> > e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers. 
> >
> >
> 
> Hmm, but the app shows up as Web in GNOME.
>

One example of GNOME Web being called Epiphany by GNOME developers is
the same blog:

https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2019/03/19/epiphany-technology-preview-upgrade-requires-manual-intervention/

You can also type both Epiphany and (your language’s translation of)
Web in the GNOME Activities search bar to find Epiphany.  The same
goes for Nautilus.  The terminal command is also still epiphany or
nautilus.

I do not know if it is possible to give a package two names; I believe
it is not.



> > Of course, there are more non-packaged applications. 
> >
> > I also remember 
> > https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/ 
> > who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core. 
> >
> 
> What?? How else to enable/disable plugins/extensions in GNOME?
>

Well…  GNOME has repeatedly tried to make simpler alternatives for
installing extensions.  I believe the current method is GNOME
Software, but I am not sure.

Regards,
Florian

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

Florian! The link you provided is awesome.

I strongly request the devs to use that link (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/) to fix this bug.On 5 May 2019 15:23, Raghav Gururajan <rvgn@disroot.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 5 May 2019 14:52, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 02:20:39PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote: 
> > > Hello Guix! 
> > > 
> > > Based on the mail-list thread "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help- 
> > > guix/2019-05/msg00124.html", it appears that there is a bug, where some 
> > > GNOME Core Applications are actually packaged in guix but have not been 
> > > included in guix's "gnome" package. 
> > > 
> >
>
> > Thank you for doing something about this!
>
> No problem :)
>
> >
> >
> > > found out that the following gnome core application packages are indeed 
> > > packaged in guix, but have not been included in guix's gnome package. 
> > > 
> > > gnome-calendar 
> > > gnome-clocks 
> > > gnome-common 
> > > gnome-desktop 
> >
>
> > gnome-common and gnome-desktop are libraries, not core applications.
>
> Agreed. Are they still relevant to be included?
>
> >
> > > gnome-dictionary 
> > > gnome-doc-utils 
> >
>
> > gnome-doc-utils is not a core application.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > > gnome-icon-theme 
> > > gnome-klotski 
> > > gnome-maps 
> > > gnome-mime-data 
> > > gnome-mines 
> > > gnome-mpv 
> >
>
> > gnome-mpv is not core.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > > gnome-planner 
> > > gnome-screenshot 
> > > gnome-shell-extensions 
> > > gnome-sudoku 
> > > gnome-todo 
> > > gnome-tweak-tool 
> > > gnome-vfs 
> >
>
> > I don’t quite know, is gnome-vfs the same as gvfs?
>
> I don't think so. May be this is the reason why WebDAV files added in gnome-online-accounts not showing up in gnome-files.
>
> >
> > > gnome-video-effects 
> > > 
> >
>
> > This appears to be a codec pack or something (?), not an application.
>
> Not exactly. Provides apps for web cam etc.
>
> >
> >
> > > The following gnome core applications are also already packaged in guix 
> > > but requires correct renaming before adding to guix's gnome package? 
> > > 
> > > rhythmbox --> gnome-music 
> > > shotwell --> gnome-photos 
> > > 
> >
>
> > Parabola GNU/Linux-libre packaging shows that these are not the same 
> > app and should not be renamed. 
> >
> > [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss shotwell 
> > community/shotwell 2:0.30.4-1 
> >     A digital photo organizer designed for the GNOME desktop environment 
> > [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-photos 
> > extra/gnome-photos 3.32.0-1 (gnome) 
> >     Access, organize, and share your photos on GNOME 
> > [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss rhythmbox 
> > extra/rhythmbox 3.4.3-1 
> >     Music playback and management application 
> > community/ario 1.6-1 
> >     A GTK client for MPD inspired by Rhythmbox but much lighter and faster 
> > [florian@pelzflorian ~]$ pacman -Ss gnome-music 
> > extra/gnome-music 1:3.32.1-1 (gnome) 
> >     Music player and management application 
> >
> >
>
> Agreed. So they need to packaged and included separately.
>
> > > The following gnome core applications have already been included in 
> > > guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming? 
> > > 
> > > epiphany --> gnome-web 
> > > envice --> gnome-documents 
> > > eog --> gnome-images 
> > > file-roller --> gnome-autoar 
> > > gedit --> gnome-text 
> > > nautilus --> gnome-files 
> > >
>
> >
> > Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by 
> > e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers. 
> >
> >
>
> Hmm, but the app shows up as Web in GNOME.
>
> > Of course, there are more non-packaged applications. 
> >
> > I also remember 
> > https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/ 
> > who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core. 
> >
>
> What?? How else to enable/disable plugins/extensions in GNOME?
>
> > > I really hope if the above modifications are made, it will fulfill the 
> > > actual description of guix's gnome package (http://guix.gnu.org/package 
> > > s/gnome-3.28.2/). ☺ 
> > > 
> >
> > Yes, I agree, that should be the goal. 
> >
> > Regards, 
> > Florian 

bug#35586: GNOME

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:36:51PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> Florian! The link you provided is awesome.
> 
> I strongly request the devs to use that link (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/) to fix this bug.

There actually also is:
https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2017/08/13/gnome-3-26-core-applications/

This is less detailed than the link before, but it is more recent.  I
do not remember reading a more recent post on GNOME core applications
on Planet GNOME, but I may have forgotten.

Regards,
Florian

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

On 5 May 2019 16:48, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:23:27PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote: 
> > On 5 May 2019 14:52, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote: 
> > > Well, they have two names and others frequently refer to them by 
> > > e.g. Epiphany and not GNOME Web, including Epiphany developers. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm, but the app shows up as Web in GNOME. 
> > 
>

> One example of GNOME Web being called Epiphany by GNOME developers is 
> the same blog: 
>
> https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2019/03/19/epiphany-technology-preview-upgrade-requires-manual-intervention/ 
>
> You can also type both Epiphany and (your language’s translation of) 
> Web in the GNOME Activities search bar to find Epiphany.  The same 
> goes for Nautilus.  The terminal command is also still epiphany or 
> nautilus. 
>
> I do not know if it is possible to give a package two names; I believe 
> it is not. 

I understand what you are saying. It appears epiphany is the old name (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Web). Dev must have used epiphany now a days as a habit.

Also, the previous blog link you sent me, recommends to use generic names.

>
>
>
> > > Of course, there are more non-packaged applications. 
> > > 
> > > I also remember 
> > > https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/ 
> > > who says, for example, that gnome-tweaks is *not* core. 
> > > 
> > 
> > What?? How else to enable/disable plugins/extensions in GNOME? 
> > 
>
> Well…  GNOME has repeatedly tried to make simpler alternatives for 
> installing extensions.  I believe the current method is GNOME 
> Software, but I am not sure. 
>
> Regards, 
> Florian 

bug#35586: GNOME

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:51:54AM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> On 5 May 2019 16:48, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> > You can also type both Epiphany and (your language’s translation of) 
> > Web in the GNOME Activities search bar to find Epiphany.  The same 
> > goes for Nautilus.  The terminal command is also still epiphany or 
> > nautilus. 
> >
> > I do not know if it is possible to give a package two names; I believe 
> > it is not. 
> 
> I understand what you are saying. It appears epiphany is the old name (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Web). Dev must have used epiphany now a days as a habit.
> 
> Also, the previous blog link you sent me, recommends to use generic names.
>

Maybe gnome-web could be the real package’s name and there could be a
package called epiphany that propagates gnome-web, like the gnome
meta-package does?  Same for nautilus etc.

Regards,
Florian

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Yeah! You could be right.

On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 11:05 +0200, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:51:54AM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> On 5 May 2019 16:48, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzfl
> orian.de> wrote:
> You can also type both Epiphany and (your language’s translation of)
> Web in the GNOME Activities search bar to find Epiphany.  The same
> goes for Nautilus.  The terminal command is also still epiphany or
> nautilus. 
> I do not know if it is possible to give a package two names; I
> believe it is not. 
> I understand what you are saying. It appears epiphany is the old name
> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Web). Dev must have used
> epiphany now a days as a habit.
> Also, the previous blog link you sent me, recommends to use generic
> names.
> 
> Maybe gnome-web could be the real package’s name and there could be
> apackage called epiphany that propagates gnome-web, like the
> gnomemeta-package does?  Same for nautilus etc.
> Regards,Florian
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1879 bytes --]

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

On 5 May 2019 16:50, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:36:51PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote: 
> > Florian! The link you provided is awesome. 
> > 
> > I strongly request the devs to use that link (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/) to fix this bug. 
>
> There actually also is: 
> https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2017/08/13/gnome-3-26-core-applications/ 
>
> This is less detailed than the link before, but it is more recent.  I 
> do not remember reading a more recent post on GNOME core applications 
> on Planet GNOME, but I may have forgotten. 

Thanks Florian!

I see. 

Also, I think it should be okay to include apps mentioned in "incubator" section as well. In Guix, users can roll back to older versions of newer ones are unstable.

>
> Regards, 
> Florian 

bug#35586: GNOME

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:57:48AM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> Also, I think it should be okay to include apps mentioned in "incubator" section as well. In Guix, users can roll back to older versions of newer ones are unstable.
> 

Well, incubator apps have not enough polish.  Then again, what back in
2016 was an incubator app maybe works fine now — I see the blog
linking to https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps which lists Notes as
core now.  Dictionary is listed as inactive/retired on the other hand.

Regards,
Florian

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

Ah, I see. ☺
On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 11:14 +0200, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:57:48AM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> Also, I think it should be okay to include apps mentioned in
> "incubator" section as well. In Guix, users can roll back to older
> versions of newer ones are unstable.
> 
> Well, incubator apps have not enough polish.  Then again, what back
> in2016 was an incubator app maybe works fine now — I see the
> bloglinking to https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps which lists Notes
> ascore now.  Dictionary is listed as inactive/retired on the other
> hand.
> Regards,Florian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1178 bytes --]

bug#35586: GNOME

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

[-- 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 --]

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

T-G-R!

Thanks for your email. I understand what you mentioned. I came across this link (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/), where the dev(s) recommend to use generic names while packaging GNOME Core Apps. :)

I think it is better to use generic names for package names and include other aliases/project-names in the package tagline and/or package description.

May 6, 2019 7:20 PM, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice" <me@tobias.gr> wrote:

> 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

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

Hello!

Recently, I have been given this link (https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps) which lists all GNOME Core Applications that are to be added to guix's gnome package.

Whether or not to do this, I think the package 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 gnome-extras" etc. This can be a good standard.

My suggestion is,
gnome --> With All Core Apps
gnome-minimal --> Without Any Core Apps (Provides only xorg/wayland, dm, wm, menus, drivers, services etc.)

** INFO: Core Apps can be found at https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps. **

Also, based on the above, I think we also need to create/enable new value "gnome-minimal" for the data type "gnome-desktop-configuration" of the variable "gnome-desktop-service-type". Value "gnome" can still be default though. Power users can change the value to "gnome-minimal".

This can provide good modularity and thus provides choices to users. For example, 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 user needs minimal GNOME with select core apps, "gnome-minimal" can be chosen under service and individual needed core apps can be added under system packages.

Also, it would be a good standard to use generic names for 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. 

Thank you!

Regards,
RG.

May 6, 2019 7:30 PM, "Raghav Gururajan" <rvgn@disroot.org> wrote:

> T-G-R!
> 
> Thanks for your email. I understand what you mentioned. I came across this link
> (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps), where the dev(s) recommend to
> use generic names while packaging GNOME Core Apps. :)
> 
> I think it is better to use generic names for package names and include other aliases/project-names
> in the package tagline and/or package description.
> 
> May 6, 2019 7:20 PM, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice" <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
> 
>> 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

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

Hello Guix Folks!

Any update on this bug please?

Regards,
RG.

bug#35586: GNOME

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Raghav,

> Any update on this bug please?

not all of the GNOME applications have been packaged.  Would you like to
try to package some of the missing applications?

This bug has a lower priority to me than others, so I’m unlikely to work
on this soon.

-- 
Ricardo

bug#35586: GNOME

[Raghav Gururajan]

> not all of the GNOME applications have been packaged. Would you like to
> try to package some of the missing applications?

Sure, I will give it a try :)

> This bug has a lower priority to me than others, so I’m unlikely to work
> on this soon.

I see.

Regards,
RG.

bug#35586:

[Raghav Gururajan]

When I re-visited this bug thread, I thought it needed summarising, so
that folks who are or will be working on this, will find it easier. ☺

                              **SUMMARY**

*ISSUES:*

When comparing to GNOME's Official Guidelines (https://wiki.gnome.org/D
esign/Apps), the package "gnome" that is used by service "gnome-
desktop-service-type" has the following issues.

1) The package "gnome" does not contain all GNOME Core Applications.
Some are already packaged and some are not.

2) The package names and application (.desktop files etc.) names are
not generic.

*ESSENTIAL TO-DOs:*

1) Change the package and application names of exsisting (already
packaged) GNOME Core Applications, to their generic names; according to
guidelines.

2) Re-compile the "gnome" package to include exsisting GNOME Core
Applications and remove unnecessary apps; according to guidelines.

3) Package missing GNOME Core Applications (using their generic names);
according to guidelines.

4) Re-compile the "gnome" package to include newly packaged GNOME Core
Applications; according to guidelines.

Therefore, final "gnome" package should contain Base Components and ALL
 Core Applications.

*ADDITIONAL TO-DOs:*

1) Create new package called "gnome-minimal" and include GNOME Core
Applications ONLY of types "Essential System" and "System Tools";
according to guidelines.

2) Modify the service "gnome-desktop-service-type" in such a way where
package "gnome-minimal" can be used as a value (alternative to the
default value "gnome").

Therefore, final "gnome-minimal" package should contain Base Components
and Core Applications ONLY of types essential system and system tools.

bug#35586: SUMMARY (Re-Write)

[Raghav Gururajan]

                              **SUMMARY**

*ISSUES:*

When comparing to GNOME's Official Guidelines (https://wiki.gnome.org/D
esign/Apps), the package "gnome" that is used by service "gnome-
desktop-service-type" has the following issues.

1) The package names that belong to package "gnome" are not all
generic.

2) The package "gnome" does not contain all GNOME Core Applications.
Some are already packaged and some are not.

These causes the package "gnome" not to reflect its own package
description and thus affecting the user experience.

*TO-DOs:*

1) Change the package and application names of exsisting (already
packaged) GNOME Core Applications, to their generic names; according to
guidelines.

2) Re-compile the "gnome" package to include exsisting GNOME Core
Applications and remove unnecessary apps; according to guidelines.

3) Package missing GNOME Core Applications (using their generic names);
according to guidelines.

4) Re-compile the "gnome" package to include newly packaged GNOME Core
Applications; according to guidelines.

Therefore, final "gnome" package should contain all
packages/applications (with their respective names) according to GNOME
Core (https://download.gnome.org/core/).

bug#35586: GNOME Core Applications

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

Based on information from [1], [2], [3] and [4]; I have formulated a
chart to keep track of things easily. :-)

CHART: https://calc.disroot.org/2nu6mpf88ynq.html

As a start, I will be working on packaging gnome-contacts, gnome-music
and gnome-weather.

If anyone performed anything from chart, please let me know and I will
update the chart accordingly.

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

[2] 
https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2017/08/13/gnome-3-26-core-applications/

[3] https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/

[4] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/35586

Regards,
RG.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

bug#35586: GNOME Core Applications

[Roman Riabenko]

Hello

Please note that GNOME Core applications are now listed at
https://apps.gnome.org/en/ in the first section.

Those are the applications that they expect being included into a basic
installation.

Currently (for GNOME 42), those are:

- Calculator (42.0)
- Calendar (42.0)
- Calls (42.0)
- Characters (42.0)
- Cheese (3.38.0)
- Clocks (42.0)
- Connections (42.0)
- Console (42.beta)
- Contacts (42.0)
- Disk Usage Analyzer / Baobab (42.0)
- Disks / Disk Utility (42.0)
- Documents Scanner / Simple Scan (42.1)
- Document Viewer / Evince (42.0)
- Extensions (42.0)
- Files / Nautilus (42.alpha)
- Fonts / Font Viewer (42.0)
- Help / Yelp (41.1)
- Image Viewer / EOG (42.1)
- Logs (3.34.0)
- Maps (42.1)
- Music (42.0)
- Password and Keys / Seahorse (42.0)
- Photos (42.0)
- Settings (42.1)
- Sofware (42.0)
- System Monitor (42.0)
- Text Editor (42.1)
- Tour (42.0)
- Videos / Totem (42.0)
- Weather (42.0)
- Web / Epiphany (42.2)

Roman 

bug#35586: GNOME Core Applications

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

Roman Riabenko schreef op wo 25-05-2022 om 09:54 [+0300]:
> Hello
> 
> Please note that GNOME Core applications are now listed at
> https://apps.gnome.org/en/ in the first section.
> 
> Those are the applications that they expect being included into a basic
> installation.
> 
> Currently (for GNOME 42), those are: [...]

What's the bug?

Greetings,
Maxime.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

bug#35586: GNOME Core Applications

[Roman Riabenko]

У ср, 2022-05-25 у 13:08 +0200, Maxime Devos пише:
> What's the bug?

To put this in context: the bug is that not all core GNOME apps are
installed for gnome-desktop-service-type. This was previously
summarized by Raghav Gururajan:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/35586#21

In the previous discussion, the core apps were determined from:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps
https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps/

The core apps as listed in Michael Catalanzo's blog post are now all
installed by default, except for Documents (obsolete), Logs, and
Software which were not packaged for guix. The GNOME wiki also lists
some pre-release apps.

Now, there is the official page where core apps are listed:
https://apps.gnome.org/en/

Per this, the following apps need to be added and were already packaged
for guix:
gnome-music (Music)
seahorse (Passwords and Keys)

The following apps will need to be added when and if they will be
packaged for guix:

Calls
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/calls

Connections (Then, gnome-boxes should be removed from core.)
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/connections

Console (Then, gnome-terminal should be removed from core.)
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/console/

Logs (Is it in scope for guix?)
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-logs

Software (Can be useful for flatpak since there is no guix backend.)
https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Software

Text Editor (Then, gedit should be removed from core.)
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-text-editor

Tour
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-tour

Console and Text Editor above are specific to updating to GNOME 42.0.
Text Editor needs GtkSourceView 5.4 or newer which was not added to
guix yet. The latest upstream version of GtkSourceView is 5.4.1.
Console is beta and hasn't got a stable release yet but is used anyway.

So, gnome-music and seahorse should be added now. The rest require
packaging effort and interest.

Roman