On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Hey, > > I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal. > Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named "doap" or > something like "module.doap"? > > Now's the time to decide, before too many modules add one...
Some advantages of <modulename>.doap: - Makes sense if the file is copied outside the context of the module, or downloaded from a web URL. - Is amenable to mime-type associations - Stands out more from all the auto* and boilerplate in the module toplevel. Conceivable disadvantages: - A tiny bit harder to explain how to create it. - needs to be renamed if you rename your module - you can't decide how your module is spelled. pkg-config? pkgconfig? PkgConfig? - as you say, puts just a little bit of burden on the automated user to find the file. I like the current scheme. - Owen _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list