Re: GNOME: names for bindings meta packages wanted

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

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