RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

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?
--
Fabio Erculiani

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0100
Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> 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.

I think we already expand the name in DESCRIPTION whenever it is
ambiguous.

Could you please mention some Gentoo examples which would benefit from
the proposed change?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0100
> Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> I think we already expand the name in DESCRIPTION whenever it is
> ambiguous.

DESCRIPTION != Application Name
Description is way too long, and sometimes, it even overflows 80 chars
limit (I recall there was a suggested limit for it, and it is 80 chars
-- that's why we have long-description in metadata.xml).

>
> Could you please mention some Gentoo examples which would benefit from
> the proposed change?

As I wrote, GUI Package Managers or Web frontends to Portage (package browsers).
Example image, taken from Ubuntu SC, showing application names:
http://cdn.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Selection_008.jpeg

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny


Cheers,
--
Fabio Erculiani

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 11/02/12 08:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0100 Fabio Erculiani
> <lxnay@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> I think we already expand the name in DESCRIPTION whenever it is
> ambiguous.
>
> Could you please mention some Gentoo examples which would benefit
> from the proposed change?
>

I don't think it's about being unambiguous, I think it's about
providing a common language title for the package. I could see this
as being something desirable for a portage gui or to add more
descriptive results to a search engine.

That said, I expect there would need to be a near-portage-wide
adoption of the new entry for this to be useful in either case, and I
don't see that happening...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk83AYQACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2RAgD/b1DCfb9KgiL0KrukK0GDBXYh
r9ldAD4DWD2yKy9nFhwBAK2NYfF9c1kvkiw63WgCvR2ICGs+va odNwHesNXHkpiw
=v02O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

On 11-02-2012 19:02:12 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0100 Fabio Erculiani
> <lxnay@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> I don't think it's about being unambiguous, I think it's about
> providing a common language title for the package. I could see this
> as being something desirable for a portage gui or to add more
> descriptive results to a search engine.
>
> That said, I expect there would need to be a near-portage-wide
> adoption of the new entry for this to be useful in either case, and I
> don't see that happening...

I wonder if metadata.xml could be "regenerated" during rsync generation
to include this entry if not present yet. It seems some simple rules
can just produce a large amount of "correct" entries, e.g.

mutt -> Mutt
exim -> Exim

And even not entirely correct, but still better:
libreoffice-writer -> Libreoffice Writer

Currently this is not possible (when Manifest is signed), since
metadata.xml is included in the Manifest. However the thin manifest
approach might allow something like this.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

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

I'm fine with this, but please make it unobtrusive (i.e. don't require
everyone to change their metadata.xml now).

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Paweł Hajdan, wrote:

> On 2/11/12 2:00 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Other distros associate a more user-friendly package name
>> (application name) to packages.
>> Say, they bind libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in
>> package metadata.

[Replying to a random message in this thread.]

Why do you think that writing the package name in mixed case and with
embedded white space would be more "user friendly"?

>> How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also
>> support this?

I still don't see what this would buy us. So far we have a unique
identifier (namely ${CATEGORY}/${PN}) for our packages. Introducing
another name will water this down and cause confusion for users, in
the first place.

So, can you point out what are the advantages of your proposal?
Are they large enough to outweigh the confusion arising?

> I'm fine with this, but please make it unobtrusive (i.e. don't
> require everyone to change their metadata.xml now).

I'm not convinced that such info should be added to metadata at all.

Ulrich

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 20:37 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Paweł Hajdan, wrote:
>
> > On 2/11/12 2:00 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> Other distros associate a more user-friendly package name
> >> (application name) to packages.
> >> Say, they bind libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in
> >> package metadata.
>
> [Replying to a random message in this thread.]
>
> Why do you think that writing the package name in mixed case and with
> embedded white space would be more "user friendly"?

because-removing-all-upper-case-spaces-and-punctuation-from-a-string
makes it less readable to a non-programmer.

> >> How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also
> >> support this?
>
> I still don't see what this would buy us. So far we have a unique
> identifier (namely ${CATEGORY}/${PN}) for our packages. Introducing
> another name will water this down and cause confusion for users, in
> the first place.
>
> So, can you point out what are the advantages of your proposal?
> Are they large enough to outweigh the confusion arising?

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

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:14:42 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 20:37 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Paweł Hajdan, wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/11/12 2:00 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > >> Other distros associate a more user-friendly package name
> > >> (application name) to packages.
> > >> Say, they bind libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in
> > >> package metadata.
> >
> > [Replying to a random message in this thread.]
> >
> > Why do you think that writing the package name in mixed case and
> > with embedded white space would be more "user friendly"?
>
> because-removing-all-upper-case-spaces-and-punctuation-from-a-string
> makes it less readable to a non-programmer.
>
> > >> How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also
> > >> support this?
> >
> > I still don't see what this would buy us. So far we have a unique
> > identifier (namely ${CATEGORY}/${PN}) for our packages. Introducing
> > another name will water this down and cause confusion for users, in
> > the first place.
> >
> > So, can you point out what are the advantages of your proposal?
> > Are they large enough to outweigh the confusion arising?
>
> 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.

And make it less possible that users will actually report a bug
and suggest changing the package name to a less ambiguous one.

And AFAICS there's no 'nwn' in SRC_URI so it's just pointless to
abbreviate the name like that in our ebuild name.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

RFC: Application name in metadata.xml
 

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.

-Alexandre.