Naming scheme for KDE Configuration Modules

[Rafael Belmonte]

I like b) option more than the rest, but d) option is also a good choice.

2010/2/5 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <didier at raboud.com>

> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >
> >  ==== Options ====
> >
> > We have discussed those four options (there are certainly more):
> >
> > a) system-config-*-kde
> > b) kcm-*
> > c) kde-control-module-*
> > d) kde-config-*
> >
> >  ==== Pros and cons ====
> >
> > a)    system-config-*-kde
> >     + Is already in the archive, down to Squeeze
> >     + Is pretty explicit
> >     - was mostly pushed by myself, with no real consensus
> >     - pollutes the system-config-* namespace, originally used for
> >       RedHat utilities, which have then been ported to KDE (thus the
> >       -printer-kde)
> >
> > b)    kcm-*
> >     + Short
> >     + Already in use by other distros (OpenSuse, Ubuntu, …)
> >     - Not really explicit
> >
> > c)    kde-control-module-*
> >     + Explicit
> >     - Might become really long
> >
> > d)    kde-config-*
> >     + Explicit, even if slightly less than the latter
>
> Hi all again,
>
> 3 days after, we have 3 opinions in favor of moving to d). Are there any
> opinions against this choice ? Please voice them.
>
> As to not delay the kcm-touchpad ITP too much, I propose to have this
> decided by the end of the week-end. Is that okay for you all ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> OdyX
>
>
> --
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20100206/704d609f/attachment.htm>