GNOME: names for bindings meta packages wanted

[Thomas Klausner-3]

Hi!

The GNOME developers define a binding set, containing a few packages
each, for c++, java, mono, perl, and python.
What should we name the meta packages?
Prefix or postfix the language?

So far I've come up with the following inconsistent set:
meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-c++
meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-mono
meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-java
meta-pkg/p5-gnome-bindings
meta-pkg/py-gnome-bindings

Other, better suggestions?
 Thomas

[Greg Troxel]

  The GNOME developers define a binding set, containing a few packages
  each, for c++, java, mono, perl, and python.
  What should we name the meta packages?
  Prefix or postfix the language?

  So far I've come up with the following inconsistent set:
  meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-c++
  meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-mono
  meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-java
  meta-pkg/p5-gnome-bindings
  meta-pkg/py-gnome-bindings

  Other, better suggestions?

Why do you need meta-pkgs?  Aren't they all in meta-pkgs/gnome that
everyone will just install?

Seriously, I think we do need fine-grained control over this, and would
favor gnome-bindings-lang, but I think you are saying that for py it
should be at the beginning to split python{23,24,25}.

What's p5?  If that's perl5, it should say perl5, unless the gnome
people insist on p5.  Seems too much like p4, a proprietary VCS.

[Thomas Klausner-3]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 07:40:34PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Why do you need meta-pkgs?  Aren't they all in meta-pkgs/gnome that
> everyone will just install?

No.
meta-pkgs/gnome is the "GNOME desktop" meta package, the one that the
end users should install.
GNOME also defines "admin", "bindings", "platform", and "devtools"
packages. "platform" contains the most important libraries, "admin" is
for system admininstration, "devtools" for developing mostly C
programs in GNOME, and "bindings" for programming GNOME in other
languages (at least that's how I understand it).

> Seriously, I think we do need fine-grained control over this, and would
> favor gnome-bindings-lang, but I think you are saying that for py it
> should be at the beginning to split python{23,24,25}.

Exactly.

> What's p5?  If that's perl5, it should say perl5, unless the gnome
> people insist on p5.  Seems too much like p4, a proprietary VCS.

All our perl modules are named p5-Some-Thing. It's a pkgsrc thing as
well. The gnomes don't insist on it :)
 Thomas

[Greg Troxel]

Thomas Klausner <wiz@...> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 07:40:34PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Why do you need meta-pkgs?  Aren't they all in meta-pkgs/gnome that
>> everyone will just install?
>
> No.
> meta-pkgs/gnome is the "GNOME desktop" meta package, the one that the
> end users should install.
> GNOME also defines "admin", "bindings", "platform", and "devtools"
> packages. "platform" contains the most important libraries, "admin" is
> for system admininstration, "devtools" for developing mostly C
> programs in GNOME, and "bindings" for programming GNOME in other
> languages (at least that's how I understand it).

OK - I agree it's good to follow upstream.  Related to my 'base'
complaint earlier, perhaps I should file that upstream.

>> Seriously, I think we do need fine-grained control over this, and would
>> favor gnome-bindings-lang, but I think you are saying that for py it
>> should be at the beginning to split python{23,24,25}.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> What's p5?  If that's perl5, it should say perl5, unless the gnome
>> people insist on p5.  Seems too much like p4, a proprietary VCS.
>
> All our perl modules are named p5-Some-Thing. It's a pkgsrc thing as
> well. The gnomes don't insist on it :)

I must have been really out of it - I maintain
graphics/p5-Image-ExifTool.  For some reason I thought this was a
proposed new abbreviation.

So I guess the key question is whether it's better to have
gnome-bindings-foo and then a few foo-gnome-bindings, or whether we
should flip all of them to be foo-gnome-bindings.

There is also guile-gnome, which I pretend to maintain but haven't
recently, and I think it's the official guile binding.

For python, apparently upstream calls in gnome-python, and we call it
py-gnome2 currently.  From x11/py-gnome2/DESCR:

  The gnome-python package contains the source packages for the Python
  bindings for GNOME called PyGNOME.

  PyGNOME is an extension module for Python that provides access to the
  base GNOME libraries, so you have access to more widgets, a simple
  configuration interface, and metadata support.

So do we need '-bindings' in the package name?

[Thomas Klausner-3]

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 07:42:28AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> OK - I agree it's good to follow upstream.  Related to my 'base'
> complaint earlier, perhaps I should file that upstream.

Fine with me :)

> So I guess the key question is whether it's better to have
> gnome-bindings-foo and then a few foo-gnome-bindings, or whether we
> should flip all of them to be foo-gnome-bindings.

Basically, yes.

> There is also guile-gnome, which I pretend to maintain but haven't
> recently, and I think it's the official guile binding.
>
> For python, apparently upstream calls in gnome-python, and we call it
> py-gnome2 currently.  From x11/py-gnome2/DESCR:
>
>   The gnome-python package contains the source packages for the Python
>   bindings for GNOME called PyGNOME.
>
>   PyGNOME is an extension module for Python that provides access to the
>   base GNOME libraries, so you have access to more widgets, a simple
>   configuration interface, and metadata support.
>
> So do we need '-bindings' in the package name?

There's one difference between these two:
guile-gnome has one tarball and builds stuff itself, while the new
bindings packages would just be meta-pkgs depending on separate
existing packages (in the python case, py-gnome2, py-gobject, py-gtk2,
py-ORBit). And upstream calls the set "bindings", that's why I'd
prefer to keep that part of the name.

Since the existing perl and python packages already have a p5/py
prefix, I think it would be good to follow this in the meta package
case and be slightly inconsistent in the naming.
 Thomas

[David Holland-11]

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 12:52:35AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
 > The GNOME developers define a binding set, containing a few packages
 > each, for c++, java, mono, perl, and python.
 > What should we name the meta packages?
 > Prefix or postfix the language?
 >
 > So far I've come up with the following inconsistent set:
 > meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-c++
 > meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-mono
 > meta-pkg/gnome-bindings-java
 > meta-pkg/p5-gnome-bindings
 > meta-pkg/py-gnome-bindings

Judging by the example of "ap-php", as well as the various py-* and
p5-* packages, the model we already have is that "foo-bar" is widgetry
for foo that allows using bar.

Thus, java-gnome would be a package that allows using gnome in Java,
whereas gnome-java would be a package that allows using Java in gnome.
(I guess that would be a bonobo-level or ORBit-level wedge to allow
carrying gnome objects over Java RMI?)

So, I think, language first.

--
David A. Holland
dholland@...

[Thomas Klausner-3]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:45:52PM +0000, David Holland wrote:

> Judging by the example of "ap-php", as well as the various py-* and
> p5-* packages, the model we already have is that "foo-bar" is widgetry
> for foo that allows using bar.
>
> Thus, java-gnome would be a package that allows using gnome in Java,
> whereas gnome-java would be a package that allows using Java in gnome.
> (I guess that would be a bonobo-level or ORBit-level wedge to allow
> carrying gnome objects over Java RMI?)
>
> So, I think, language first.

So you'd prefer
c++-gnome-bindings
mono-gnome-bindings
to make it consistent?
I imported them yesterday as gnome-bindings-c++ and
gnome-bindings-mono, but I have no problem renaming them.
 Thomas

[David Holland-11]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:00:30AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
 > > So, I think, language first.
 >
 > So you'd prefer
 > c++-gnome-bindings
 > mono-gnome-bindings
 > to make it consistent?
 > I imported them yesterday as gnome-bindings-c++ and
 > gnome-bindings-mono, but I have no problem renaming them.

I think so; I'm not sure if it matters enough to be worth the hassle
of "renaming" in CVS, though.

--
David A. Holland
dholland@...

[Thomas Klausner-3]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:27:58PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> I think so; I'm not sure if it matters enough to be worth the hassle
> of "renaming" in CVS, though.

Done - wasn't so much hassle.
 Thomas