Hello,
After a brief discussion in debian-mentors[1], Paul Wise suggested that we might need a virtual package for icon themes that adhere to the FreeDesktop.org icon naming spec[2]. Following his suggestions, I posted a message requesting feedback from debian-desktop[3] (I suggest that interested parties read that thread for more insight). Now I'm following the instructions in the authoritative list of virtual packages[4], and step 1 is proposing the changes to debian-devel and filing a bug report against debian-policy (the report will be filed after this e-mail is sent). [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/03/msg00055.html [2]: http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.html [3]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-desktop/2012/03/msg00020.html [4]: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt The problem I'm trying to solve is that packages currently need to express dependency relations on any of a number of icon themes that provide the necessary icons. As an example, the package arista depends on: gnome-icon-theme | gnome-icon-theme-gartoon | gnome-icon-theme-nuovo | gnome-icon-theme-yasis | lxde-icon-theme | moblin-icon-theme | tango-icon-theme | gnome-themes-more | gnome-accessibility-themes This obviously doesn't scale well. By introducing a virtual package (say, "fdo-icon-theme"), several packages could be changed to depend on (or suggest, recommend) something as simple as "gnome-icon-theme | fdo-icon-theme". Some virtual package names have been proposed: * fd-icon-theme (by Paul Wise) * freedesktop-icon-theme (by Paul Wise) * fdo-icon-theme (by Sune Vuorela) They're all fine to me. If I had to pick one, I'd go with fdo-icon-theme. I hope we can stay away from lengthy discussions about naming. This is how I imagine this change would impact maintainers: * A lintian warning could be created to make sure that packages that adhere to the spec provide the virtual package. I plan to take a look at this if the idea goes through, but I know very little Perl, so I'd be glad if someone beat me to it. * Wishlist bugs could be filed against packages that adhere to the spec but don't provide the virtual package. * Likewise, wishlist bugs could be filed against packages that provide the necessary icons but don't adhere to the spec. It would be up to maintainers of individual packages to choose whether to depend on (or suggest, recommend) the virtual package or on some specific icon theme(s) instead, of course. But in most cases there would be no reason not to simply depend on the virtual package. The changes won't happen overnight. As soon as enough icon theme packages provide the virtual package, the maintainers should be able to depend on it. Given that the changes simplify package maintenance and don't seem very disruptive, though, I believe the they will be well received. So in order for the process to continue, it would be great if we could iron out any remaining issues. Does anybody object to this proposal (and why)? Is there anything I'm missing, i.e., when it comes to how this would impact packaging? Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANVYNa-xEhhrHCHT9+SyWpyTkMvbdvRMFNZ=dpjpfor3as7...@mail.gmail.com
