Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

dtw · 2006-09-23 16:55:37

Look lets put this to bed once and for all. All the gtk engine pkgs in [current], [extra] and [community] are named gtk-[engine name]-engine. When adding engines to the AUR please can we all follow suit, if that's not too much to ask!

allucid · 2006-09-23 21:21:53

Isn't there someone who has the authority to move around/rename/delete packages in the AUR?

kastor · 2006-09-24 05:16:57

dtw wrote:

Look lets put this to bed once and for all. All the gtk engine pkgs in [current], [extra] and [community] are named gtk-[engine name]-engine. When adding engines to the AUR please can we all follow suit, if that's not too much to ask!

i would prefer gtk-engine-[engine name] but there are other gtk-[engine name]-engine. i renamed to gtk-murrine-engine

cheers.

dtw · 2006-09-24 09:52:13

To be honest there are some gtk engines in community that don't even have the word engine in their names...I shan't name names though...

chrismortimore · 2006-09-24 10:53:05

kastor wrote:

i would prefer gtk-engine-[engine name]

I agree, makes searching for them a lot easier.

iphitus · 2006-09-24 12:36:19

dtw wrote:

To be honest there are some gtk engines in community that don't even have the word engine in their names...I shan't name names though...

there's one in [extra] too!

dtw · 2006-09-24 13:42:08

- can we bring it to the attention of the devs? it seems a bit daft to have a half-implemented standard

Mikos · 2006-09-24 15:34:34

chrismortimore wrote:

kastor wrote:
i would prefer gtk-engine-[engine name]
I agree, makes searching for them a lot easier.

You can search with regexps, for example "pacman -S '^gtk-.*-engine$'". But I agree that gtk-engine-[engine name] would be better, it is more hierarchical, like directory structure ;-)

chrismortimore · 2006-09-24 15:37:17

Mikos wrote:

You can search with regexps, for example "pacman -S '^gtk-.*-engine$'". But I agree that gtk-engine-[engine name] would be better, it is more hierarchical, like directory structure ;-)

Thats basically what I do the now (I actually pipe the pacman output through sed, but it's all really the same in the grand scheme of things...), but it's a pest to type it all

iphitus · 2006-09-25 01:54:07

dtw wrote:

- can we bring it to the attention of the devs? it seems a bit daft to have a half-implemented standard

i never realised it was a implemented standard

stavrosg · 2006-09-25 06:06:58

iphitus wrote:

dtw wrote:
- can we bring it to the attention of the devs? it seems a bit daft to have a half-implemented standard
i never realised it was a implemented standard

You may call it a de facto standard

damjan · 2006-09-26 22:55:45

It would be nice to have a rule like this about kde/qt styles too

Cimi · 2006-09-27 00:54:03

I vote for gtk-engine-[engine] and i'm voting myself for murrine package manteiner just because I'm the only one who doesn't need to be adviced of new releases... also for candido!

lefallen · 2006-09-27 08:14:27

At the moment it is up to the people submitting to make the names conform. That's OK though.

I agree - I think we should all make a concerted effort to do this for all packages. I know that now before putting something up I first do a search to try to find out if there is a common naming theme.

It just makes it easier for all. And you WANT people to find your package presumably so make it easy for them to do so

In this case most likely gtk-engine-* makes the most sense.

detto · 2006-09-30 14:57:43

Hello there,
im using all those gtk engines and like them.
Read this thread and also wanted to contribute to arch since some time ago but never made it.

I now have put a package in AUR name "gtk-engine-murrine" (see here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?d … 1&ID=6992).
I hope i did it right, first time with AUR & me

cheers,
detto

skew · 2007-07-17 15:44:24

It seems like nothing ever came of this. The package names in the repos are still pretty inconsistent.

dtw · 2007-07-17 17:33:11

This is on my list of things to fix ;-)

dolby · 2007-07-17 17:55:56

what i dont like about gtk-engine packages i have tried is that they all contain a bunch of themes in them. imho if a pkg is name eg. gtk-egine-murrine iit should just contain the engine. a split gtk-engine-murrine-themes or something named similar should contain themes.

& just in case: ps. i aint bitchin , i build my own gtk engine packages anyway

dtw · 2007-07-17 18:04:30

OK, dolby. I'll look at that.

iphitus · 2007-07-18 08:16:49

dolby wrote:

what i dont like about gtk-engine packages i have tried is that they all contain a bunch of themes in them. imho if a pkg is name eg. gtk-egine-murrine iit should just contain the engine. a split gtk-engine-murrine-themes or something named similar should contain themes.
& just in case: ps. i aint bitchin , i build my own gtk engine packages anyway

Often the author distributes such themes with the engine, in which case, it's correct to include them. At least one is required for the engine to be "functional" out of the box. For most packaged engines, the themes are negligable, a single text file, usually <1kb. IMHO, I like having them there, it saves me wasting time on gnome-look/art.gnome.org.

James

dtw · 2007-07-18 13:57:50

I'd prefer to go with gtk-engine-$name because that makes it REALLY easy to search in pacman for the engines. However, most of the engines in the main repos use the gtk-$name-engine format, which is more in line with the actual name of the src.

I guess it would be best to go with gtk-$name-engine, which is the proper format and include the words gtk-engine in the description, that way pacman should pick it up. Sound right?

Hmmm, how about using provides=gtk-engine-$name? Or is that cheating?

Last edited by dtw (2007-07-18 14:00:05)

maddog39 · 2007-07-21 00:09:19

Mikos wrote:

chrismortimore wrote:
kastor wrote:
i would prefer gtk-engine-[engine name]
I agree, makes searching for them a lot easier.
You can search with regexps, for example "pacman -S '^gtk-.*-engine$'". But I agree that gtk-engine-[engine name] would be better, it is more hierarchical, like directory structure ;-)

I would agree with this as well. Seems like the most logical approach and the one that makes the most sense.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-23 16:55:37

Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#2 2006-09-23 21:21:53

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#3 2006-09-24 05:16:57

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#4 2006-09-24 09:52:13

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#5 2006-09-24 10:53:05

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#6 2006-09-24 12:36:19

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#7 2006-09-24 13:42:08

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#8 2006-09-24 15:34:34

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#9 2006-09-24 15:37:17

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#10 2006-09-25 01:54:07

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#11 2006-09-25 06:06:58

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#12 2006-09-26 22:55:45

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#13 2006-09-27 00:54:03

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#14 2006-09-27 08:14:27

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#15 2006-09-30 14:57:43

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#16 2007-07-17 15:44:24

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#17 2007-07-17 17:33:11

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#18 2007-07-17 17:55:56

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#19 2007-07-17 18:04:30

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#20 2007-07-18 08:16:49

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#21 2007-07-18 13:57:50

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

#22 2007-07-21 00:09:19

Re: Start your (gtk-?-)engines!

Board footer