Re: On doap file naming
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>
- Cc: Gnome-infrastructure gnome org, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: On doap file naming
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:18:34 -0400
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
- 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