Re: On doap file naming

[Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com>]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal.
>> Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named "doap" or
>> something like "module.doap"?
>>
>> Now's the time to decide, before too many modules add one...
>
> Some advantages of <modulename>.doap:
>
>  - Makes sense if the file is copied outside the context of the module,
>   or downloaded from a web URL.
>  - Is amenable to mime-type associations
>  - Stands out more from all the auto* and boilerplate in the module
>   toplevel.
>
> Conceivable disadvantages:
>
>  - A tiny bit harder to explain how to create it.
>  - needs to be renamed if you rename your module
>  - you can't decide how your module is spelled. pkg-config? pkgconfig?
>   PkgConfig?
>  - as you say, puts just a little bit of burden on the automated user
>   to find the file.
>
> I like the current scheme.

I've added a note about [module].doap here:

http://live.gnome.org/MaintainersCorner

If the policy changes, please update this page.

Thanks,
Sandy