Albert Lee wrote: > It seems strange to me to have exceptions to the x11/clients/ convention, > particularly when the contents are similar as x11/demo is to > x11/clients/mesademos. I take it the x11/diagnostic and x11/demo mirror the > upper-level diagnostic and demo categories, but it seems like going for > some kind of consistency at that level actually creates more confusion.
For x11/demo, I'd followed the existing name given in the package renaming, as listed on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+indiana/Renamed+Packages+in+Build+133 mesademos should probably be x11/demo/mesademos if we're following that. x11/diagnostic is a new invention, chosen to mirror the top-level diagnostic. I'm not wedded to it, and see that there are no other diagnostic subcategories in the existing package list, but it seemed to be a useful distinction from the general /clients/. I'm also open to splitting the /clients/ into better subcategories - there seem to be several that would fit under x11/utilities, and possibly x11/accessories/* as Nico suggested for things like xbiff & xcalc, though I'm not sure where things like xditview would end up (there doesn't seem to be a general "file viewer", and it's not really images for image/viewer/* ) > Perhaps "graphical-login" should be used instead of "display-manager" to > be more consistent with a potential service names. Again, I was just being consistent with the existing gdm package name - if we decide to rename both, I'm happy with that as well. > X protocol headers and X server input drivers are some areas where aren't > separate packages currently, but it might be useful to establish a naming > scheme for future expansion. I've held off on splitting those in our packages while upstream works out if they're being remerged, though I suppose for the drivers, even if upstream merges them we may want to split them out, as I've done with the X servers, so that sites can install just the bits needed for their hardware. If we do split, they'd probably become x11/server/xorg/driver/*, like the existing graphics drivers, though then there's the question of if they should follow the upstream naming convention of xf86-input-synaptics, or if it would be less confusing to call them xorg-input-synaptics, much like the existing xorg-* driver modules there. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [email protected] Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
