From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwk1F-0000z4-2R for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:43:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F7E3E08F0; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA025E08C2 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p548D24DA.dip.t-dialin.net [84.141.36.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tommy) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C54341B400E for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F385C91.2000608@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:42:57 +0100 From: Thomas Sachau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20111223 Firefox/9.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.6.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Application name in metadata.xml References: <4F37DE18.7080904@gentoo.org> <20280.5374.577507.960890@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1329081282.446.9.camel@rook> In-Reply-To: <1329081282.446.9.camel@rook> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig554D482868F382BF5A9C5543" X-Archives-Salt: 0a477161-5d58-44f6-835f-6c04003a63fc X-Archives-Hash: f5ed427bea0e165dbe4a14ba615e949b This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig554D482868F382BF5A9C5543 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alexandre Rostovtsev schrieb: > Users know a package's "natural name", not the occasionally cryptic > ebuild name, and certainly not the category. If I want to install a gam= e > called "Neverwinter Nights", it may not be immediately apparent to me > that I should emerge something called "games-rpg/nwn". >=20 > Adding the natural name to metadata would allow users to more easily > find the packages they need via packages.gentoo.org and tools like eix.= >=20 > -Alexandre >=20 >=20 >=20 If people have to look into a file to find a name for a package different from the package name, they can also directly look into the ebuild or, even more simple, just use the search ability of portage or other tools, which are able to search the DESCRIPTION. So if package name really differs from the ebuild name, put it into the description and you can find the package with portage or tools like..... eix ;-) If you really, for whatever reasons, dont want to place it into DESCRIPTION, metadata.xml already has longdescription. If you place the full natural name of the package into that field together with an extended description, i am pretty sure, that noone will complain. So from my point of view, i currently dont see any need for a special field in metadata.xml to specify the natural name of a package. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --------------enig554D482868F382BF5A9C5543 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iJwEAQECAAYFAk84XJcACgkQG7kqcTWJkGcfjQP8CuoMKJNvAsNqCwOqcIuv1zi5 X3/2PpkYlkwT4KDoP8ngJGa1uKfPpsGTGJdF7NXZEOwfPpZpOkm5dCs7bzB/Oi0k SBXn3yUQPGkXYXi65U4gVs7oXNFI7hBLf6S0lT1FrMyI9hriDeC6rojCgg6kMRtR e9gDY+z6qpPVqWOp9hw= =Wzoe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig554D482868F382BF5A9C5543--