On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 10:43:13AM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:36:28PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: > > > * Package name : eazel-engine > > > > > > This is the upstream (and source) package name, binary will most likely be > > > gtk-theme-crux. > > > > This actually is a real engine, not just a theme, so i'd prefer the name > > gtk-engines-eazel or gtk-engines-crux > > About these names: check the thread on debian-devel a couple of messages > before my ITP (subject: [RFC] GTK+ theme naming). > Daniel Burrows (who has packaged a couple of other themes) seemed to agree > that gtk-engines-* is probably (most likely) not the best name for these > packages.
It may not be the best one, but I think that we should be consistent now that we have a convention. We can worry about moving to a better naming scheme in the future. > No, you're correct - it does require compilation. > Hmmm... maybe it would be useful to put the actual engine and theme in a > separate package. (and that would probably make most sense, wrt. naming of > the various binary packages too) I don't see any benefit from this. Daniel -- /-------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/
