Hi Maciej,
Am 26.09.2009 um 12:03 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Dagobert Michelsen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.09.2009 um 19:27 schrieb Philip Brown:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM, William Bonnet
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Proposition are listed in this poll :
http://doodle.com/huc5w789f4gmft79
i finally got around to looking at this... and seems like an
option is
missing.
you were comparing what happens to something called "fooproto".
you give "xfooxproto" as an option (which is very confusing to me,
sticking something in the MIDDLE). But you dont have "xfooproto" as
an option.
William, Sebastian, Maciej: Why do you think it is a good idea to
reorder the naming parts of the software? Like
inputproto -> x11proto_input
And I don't want to hear "for consistency", Maciej ;-)
Actually, I thought about suggesting compressing the prefix even more.
We've got pm_* and py_*, right? If there's a whole category of X11
protocols, why not have xp_*? A counterargument could be that xp_* is
not self explanatory. Well, neither is pm_*.
It is, because the files end in .pm :-)
If anyone is interested
in what those packages are (that xp stands for X11 protocol),
descriptions will help. What do you think?
The proposed solution from William with a simple prefix and leaving the
rest as defined by upstream sounds very reasonable to me.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
