On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Owen Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I've added a note about [module].doap here: http://live.gnome.org/MaintainersCorner If the policy changes, please update this page. Thanks, Sandy _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
