On 12 February 2012 21:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 22:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
>> And AFAICS there's no 'nwn' in SRC_URI so it's just pointless to
>> abbreviate the name like that in our ebuild name.
>
> "nwn" is the name of the game's main executable and the standard
> abbreviation for Neverwinter Nights in the rpg community.
>

The use of package names which are the same as the executable names is
a great feature of the portage tree.

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 game
> called "Neverwinter Nights", it may not be immediately apparent to me
> that I should emerge something called "games-rpg/nwn".
>
> 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.
>
> -Alexandre
>
>
>

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.

--

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/13/2012 12:42 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> 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 game called "Neverwinter Nights", it may not be
>> immediately apparent to me that I should emerge something called
>> "games-rpg/nwn".
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -Alexandre
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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.
>
This field wont be useful to users but to GUI applications that want
to show a pretty name instead of a weird PN. It would be fully
optional but it would have a standard syntax. You can't use
<longdesription> for that to extract the real package name because
each developer use this tag in a different way. Same for description.
The proposed tag would have a single strict syntax, that is a single
string just for the real package name so it would be easily
extractable. And of course it would be fully optional. After all, it
is just an addition in metadata.dtd

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPOMtJAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCykQP/35WxHYWrJx1p5EiJtqG+VGg
/MfUq/5s25lOSW8RjR51HexHh/rkKXEmBA5lhzDVdO9G+tg+yveHoRBYVwy+zbz7
GXyHqb967n2TiR2AIq9zEVPR/9hmoo8mInItevW6UNiy/rIPs+Y1+KImm45R8ujK
ja10r+SDB9Xr629MYsiCwJbbjEDTwmcH82ivctFqJAL6bBUYDY uOGAmphbO2VBmU
J1Y1U1SAxugL1H/x/hpUFlX1e7lzbi7BWa7J5FIzSPtXjNwsj3Wgk9GK9/ENV96W
ktWapjnpJkRv6zR+nRoaKE8Nn2OwBVRHdGk1Yw8WPpVAKxwySQ h+xboqhMExzudj
4Ll7Rdlg7wAAT/nnWuQdDtDhr1++GKQyYRWw23rO+8Jf6LFUd3TWPoUuN1lyDp/t
XFKdqGL71Rlhi9zaZRyWA34cgDYNV1bZH/jhlnv3mm9rj7hWr21XXLkMvP4BuAt7
jwkI6twuB4PP11NMCjx0teE5AgDdNlofrxBO/F3j+ZZ3u/U56h+VdKLPArk2UNyl
lcgqSAkylDlKAP0UGclDYpK5/gOwm/4L2fYCVjGYt8ZIR7BOTvhnuRdbYsW5awjE
YZVa14WvyJ7W6SxfFXB9XkAGt+KWj5pX6p8ZNjhW2DMEIfwDUe 5xsEoL6X+C4RH4
ds5JsoHi8tGCYm0KqpKc
=QGwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2/11/12 2:00 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:

I think this is not the first time it's been discussed here, but maybe
I'm wrong.
Other distros associate a more user-friendly package name (application
name) to packages.
Say, they bind libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in package metadata.

How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also support this?
It would be nice to show this info in GUI package managers instead of
the actual, and ugly (for the newbies), CP or CPV.
It would be just a small addition that would make a big diff.

So?


Let's do that.

lu

Markos,
there are also webapps.

--
Fabio Erculiani
http://lxnay.com

On 13 February 2012 21:35, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This field wont be useful to users but to GUI applications that want
> to show a pretty name instead of a weird PN. It would be fully
> optional but it would have a standard syntax. You can't use
> <longdesription> for that to extract the real package name because
> each developer use this tag in a different way. Same for description.
> The proposed tag would have a single strict syntax, that is a single
> string just for the real package name so it would be easily
> extractable. And of course it would be fully optional. After all, it
> is just an addition in metadata.dtd
>


I think it makes sense to also support there being multiple fields of
this kind, because packages like libreoffice bundle multiple
applications in the one.

I'd propose a structure like

<provides>
<application name="Libreoffice Writer" binary="lowriter"
description="A Word processing tool">
</application>
....
</provides>


You could have a proviso somewhere for multiple provides sections and
each section being dependent on some atom match, but I think that's
really over-engineering it.

I thought about putting in stuff to allow for extra metadata for
aliases and such to relate to what people are really looking for ( ie:
people who are still wanting openoffice should get given libreoffice
as a result ) but also smells of over-engineering and nasty messes.

--
Kent

perl -e* "print substr( "edrgmaM* SPA NOcomil.ic@tfrken", $_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"