GNU bug report logs - #35586
GNOME Core Applications

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Raghav Gururajan" <rvgn <at> disroot.org>
To: rekado <at> elephly.net, clement <at> lassieur.org, me <at> tobias.gr
Cc: 35586 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#35586: GNOME
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 06:29:16 +0000

Hello!

Recently, I have been given this link (https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps) which lists all GNOME Core Applications that are to be added to guix's gnome package.

Whether or not to do this, I think the package with the name "gnome" in any distribution should always reflect the vanilla gnome suite released by GNOME Project. Any modification to it, I think, should be packaged under different name like "gnome-minimal" or gnome-extras" etc. This can be a good standard.

My suggestion is,
gnome --> With All Core Apps
gnome-minimal --> Without Any Core Apps (Provides only xorg/wayland, dm, wm, menus, drivers, services etc.)

** INFO: Core Apps can be found at https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps. **

Also, based on the above, I think we also need to create/enable new value "gnome-minimal" for the data type "gnome-desktop-configuration" of the variable "gnome-desktop-service-type". Value "gnome" can still be default though. Power users can change the value to "gnome-minimal".

This can provide good modularity and thus provides choices to users. For example, 1) If a user needs full-blown GNOME, "gnome" can be chosen, 2) If a user needs only minimal GNOME, "gnome-minimal" can be chosen, 3) If a user needs minimal GNOME with select core apps, "gnome-minimal" can be chosen under service and individual needed core apps can be added under system packages.

Also, it would be a good standard to use generic names for packaging as recommended at https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps. Other alias-names/project names can be included in package's description. 

Thank you!

Regards,
RG.

May 6, 2019 7:30 PM, "Raghav Gururajan" <rvgn <at> disroot.org> wrote:

> T-G-R!
> 
> Thanks for your email. I understand what you mentioned. I came across this link
> (https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/09/21/gnome-3-22-core-apps), where the dev(s) recommend to
> use generic names while packaging GNOME Core Apps. :)
> 
> I think it is better to use generic names for package names and include other aliases/project-names
> in the package tagline and/or package description.
> 
> May 6, 2019 7:20 PM, "Tobias Geerinckx-Rice" <me <at> tobias.gr> wrote:
> 
>> Raghav,
>> 
>> Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm sure there's plenty to be
>> improved in how we package a large collection of software like
>> GNOME in an intuitive way.
>> 
>> Raghav Gururajan wrote:
>> 
>>> The following gnome core applications have already been included
>>> in
>>> guix's gnome package but requires correct renaming?
>>> 
>>> epiphany --> gnome-web
>> 
>> Using ‘correct’ here is a bit strong.
>> 
>> ~ λ guix install epiphany
>> ~ λ gnome-web
>> bash: gnome-web: command not found
>> ~ λ epiphany
>> # browsin' time
>> 
>> While we don't blindly name packages after the binaries they
>> provide, of course, a look at the project's own publications
>> doesn't reduce the confusion. Ironic.
>> 
>> “Web is the web browser for the GNOME desktop and for elementary
>> OS,
>> based on the popular WebKit engine. It offers a simple, clean,
>> beautiful view of the web featuring first-class GNOME and
>> Pantheon
>> desktop integration. Its code name is Epiphany.
>> 
>> You may install Web from the software repositories of most
>> Linux
>> operating systems, where it is normally packaged as
>> "epiphany-browser" or "epiphany". ”[0]
>> 
>> The README[1] mainly, but not exclusively, talks about ‘Epiphany’.
>> Even the two URLs balance each other out. I don't think there's
>> enough here to justify gross renaming, and in the name of all
>> that's holy let's avoid another mass renaming incident.
>> 
>> Personally, I think adding ‘GNOME Foo’ to the synopses of all
>> these packages is sufficient (epiphany does this by coincidence,
>> calling itself the ‘GNOME web browser’). Eventually, this could
>> be another use for the separate (G)UI display name field as
>> suggested in the games thread. :-)
>> 
>> Package names aren't opaque identifiers, but they can be a little
>> technical IMO.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> T G-R
>> 
>> [0]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web
>> [1]: https://github.com/GNOME/epiphany

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.