Re: On doap file naming
- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Gnome-infrastructure gnome org, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: On doap file naming
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:01:44 -0400
On 04/18/2009 08:18 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
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
Good point. Also, is there any use in installing them? CC'ing Richard.
- Stands out more from all the auto* and boilerplate in the module
- 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?
- as you say, puts just a little bit of burden on the automated user
to find the file.
I like the current scheme.
] [Thread Prev