Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #21 from Dominic Hopf <[email protected]> 2009-07-18 15:29:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > (In reply to comment #17) > > > I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. > > > geany-plugins-foo) > > > rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles > > > (eg. > > > claws-mail-plugins-*). > > > > Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be "plugin", because each > > package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as > > well in > > the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in > > the > > meantime, so I agree with you. > > Hm. Spurred on by that comment, I just did a yum list \*plugin\* and there is > a > usage of both foo-plugin-bar and foo-plugins-bar. So, I am no longer sure > which > is correct! I can certainly see that your rationale for "-plugin-" makes > sense. > Perhaps this is a case of "leave it up to the packager". It's probably > something that the FPC should standardize, as well. Jonathan was a bit faster with answering than me, so in the release 5 which I just posted the sub-packages got renamed to geany-plugins-*. I totally agree with Christophs point of view. It definitely does make sense to name the subpackages geany-plugin-* since they include just one plugin at a time (except geany-plugins-addons, in fact). Anyway I tend to leave the naming geany-plugins-* since the upstream project is named "geany-plugins". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
