You are not logged in.

#1 2012-06-04 15:33:22

utdemir
Member
Registered: 2009-06-10
Posts: 23

Package naming scheme

Hi.

I'm a happy Arch Linux user for a few years. an issue recently started bothering me. Package names are inconsistent most of the times.

Lets see:

extra/xorg-server-devel 1.12.2-1
    Development files for the X.Org X server
extra/gimp-devel 2.8.0-1
    GNU Image Manipulation Program (Development Version)

or

extra/network-manager-applet 0.9.4.1-1
    GNOME frontends to NetWorkmanager
extra/networkmanager 0.9.4.0-4
    Network Management daemon

Also, python{2,3,}-* packages are a completely mess. Some packages are numbered, some are not, some python-* packages are for python2, some for python3.

Or, there is gnome-extra group, but not xfce4-extra, there is xfce4-goodies.

I understand if those names are from upstream, but I don't think they are so.

Those are just the ones I can remember, I'm sure there is a lot of more. Can anyone give me a reason, or should I use bugtracker?

Offline

#2 2012-06-04 15:59:10

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,539

Re: Package naming scheme

Let's see

"xorg-server"-devel
"gimp"-devel
$UPSTREAM_NAME-devel

Looks fine to me.

networkmanager
network-manager-applet
→ upstream names

Looks fine to me.

gnome-extra is gnome-extra everywhere. Arch, Debian, Gentoo. It has been Gnome extra, before xfce4-goodies became xfce4-goodies. On the other hand, xfce4-goodies is the upstream term  (see goodies.xfce.org)

Don't get me wrong, I salute your efforts. I sometimes am confused myself by such inconsistency, but I cannot remember any examples. This is, however, indeed a case for the mailing list or the bugtracker.

Offline

#3 2012-06-04 16:08:18

utdemir
Member
Registered: 2009-06-10
Posts: 23

Re: Package naming scheme

The problem is: xorg-server-devel is "xorg-server's development files", but gimp-devel is "gimp's development version".

But you're right about networkmanager, sadly nothing to do about it.

Offline

#4 2012-06-04 16:38:08

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,539

Re: Package naming scheme

Oh, I didn't know that. Let's see:

$ pacman -Sqs "devel" | egrep "\-devel$"
gimp-devel
khrplatform-devel
pygobject-devel
pygobject2-devel
xorg-server-devel
gambas2-devel
gambas3-devel

So, with a little -Si magic:

Name           : gimp-devel
Description    : GNU Image Manipulation Program (Development Version)

Name           : khrplatform-devel
Description    : Khronos platform development package

Name           : pygobject-devel
Description    : Development files for the pygobject bindings

Name           : pygobject2-devel
Description    : Development files for the pygobject bindings

Name           : xorg-server-devel
Description    : Development files for the X.Org X server

Name           : gambas2-devel
Description    : Gambas2 development environment

Name           : gambas3-devel
Description    : Development environment

1x development version
4x development files/bindings
2x development environment

This is indeed somewhat inconsistent. Let's try this the other way round: What would you do instead?

Offline

#5 2012-06-04 17:28:28

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Package naming scheme

Also, "base-devel" is not the development version of the "base" group. wink

I would get rid of gimp-devel since the GIMP 2.8 has been released, even though you weren't really asking for my opinion.

In general, I don't think it's a problem as long as there's no silly name collisions. (Like, I want the development bindings for the development version of the GIMP: gimp-devel-devel!)

Offline

#6 2012-06-04 18:04:17

utdemir
Member
Registered: 2009-06-10
Posts: 23

Re: Package naming scheme

It's just posted in mailing list:

Hi,

I would like to move gimp-devel to AUR. At the moment, I'm the
maintainer of gimp and gimp-devel, but I don't see any reason for the
devel package in our repository. These are not the development files
for gimp, it's the next devel branch for the next version (just for
clarification).

I will move it tomorrow, if no objections appears.

Daniel

Coincidence? I don't think so smile.

---

That was just a little thing annoys me, if that isn't a problem for most of us, I think I should just let things go smile.

Thanks for answers.

Offline

#7 2012-06-05 01:38:34

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 924

Re: Package naming scheme

In my opinion a "standard base line" for names and descriptions maybe fix the problem in the long/near future
base lines like:

lib before the name and only for libraries
all python packages nees use python fallow of the python version
all packages for development utils (xorg-xserver-devel) use -devel, from the development branch use -next (gimp-next) and them

a "base line standard" for name and/or description may prevent this type of inconsistant in the future and fix the names

my 2 coint to the theme, and my personal opinion


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

#8 2012-06-05 02:09:30

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,856

Re: Package naming scheme

utdemir wrote:

Coincidence? I don't think so smile.

I do. The previous poster already mentioned that gimp 2.8 is out, and the primary (I think sole) reason for gimp-devel is that it took so long for gimp to release a stable version and the dev version had various features many wanted (single-window mode, for me).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#9 2012-06-05 07:42:56

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,539

Re: Package naming scheme

utdemir wrote:

That was just a little thing annoys me, if that isn't a problem for most of us, I think I should just let things go smile.

Don't just let it go. If you encounter a package with a weird name or a group of packages with naming inconsistency, ask the maintainer. Maybe it bugs others as well, but they're too busy at the moment to do something about it. That happens very often, especially if you use Arch at work.

Offline

#10 2012-06-05 07:47:21

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 924

Re: Package naming scheme

other example are fonts like monaco-linux-font is a ttf or odf?
thhis is other examble of the need fo a  "standar base line for naming" not nee dobligatory but make thing more easy for searchs an then

any dev agree w a Recomended but not obligatory "package name base line"????


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

#11 2012-06-05 07:55:18

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Package naming scheme

Someone post it up as a feature request - that's the only way you can sure the devs will see it.

Offline

#12 2012-06-05 08:17:04

Snowman
Developer/Forum Fellow
From: Montreal, Canada
Registered: 2004-08-20
Posts: 5,212

Re: Package naming scheme

ngoonee wrote:
utdemir wrote:

Coincidence? I don't think so smile.

I do. The previous poster already mentioned that gimp 2.8 is out, and the primary (I think sole) reason for gimp-devel is that it took so long for gimp to release a stable version and the dev version had various features many wanted (single-window mode, for me).

The reason we have gimp-devel in [extra] is that many years ago there used to be an official [unstable] repo.  However, it contained only a few packages and most of them were unmaintained. So gimp-devel and a few others were moved to [extra] and the rest was removed along with the repo. I used to maintain gimp-devel but, recently, Daniel (ise) took over the maintainership of the gimp related packages. Daniel doesn't feel the need to keep gimp-devel hence the removal. As I don't really use gimp (stable or devel), I'm not interested in taking gimp-devel back.

As for the python2/3 package naming, it's because we are in a transition.  Many python packages don't support python3 yet or the python 3 version is not needed by any packages in the repo, so we're doing things progressively. When we rename a package, we need to update all the dependencies because provides/replaces won't work in this particular case. It's a lot of work for a very small benefit.

Offline

#13 2012-06-05 08:30:24

Iranon
Member
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 146

Re: Package naming scheme

Clear guidelines in cases where there isn't clear upstream nomenclature to follow would be nice, but to my understanding Arch leaves things alone that can be left alone to avoid further complicating things.
"If upstream produces crap, we promise to pass it on without spitting in it".

Last edited by Iranon (2012-06-05 08:30:55)

Offline

#14 2012-06-05 09:26:25

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,539

Re: Package naming scheme

Jristz wrote:

any dev agree w a Recomended but not obligatory "package name base line"????

There is a certain irony, asking for a language convention, while ignoring another. ;-)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB