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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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
