[csw-maintainers] /testing Some X11 proto updates

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 25.09.2009 um 19:27 schrieb Philip Brown:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM, William Bonnet <william at wbonnet.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Proposition are listed in this poll :
>>>
>>> http://doodle.com/huc5w789f4gmft79
>>>
>>
>> i finally got around to looking at this... and seems like an option is
>> missing.
>>
>> you were comparing what happens to something called "fooproto".
>>
>> you give "xfooxproto" as an option (which is very confusing to me,
>> sticking something in the  MIDDLE). But you dont have "xfooproto" as
>> an option.
>
> William, Sebastian, Maciej: Why do you think it is a good idea to
> reorder the naming parts of the software? Like
>  inputproto -> x11proto_input
>
> And I don't want to hear "for consistency", Maciej ;-)

Actually, I thought about suggesting compressing the prefix even more.
We've got pm_* and py_*, right? If there's a whole category of X11
protocols, why not have xp_*? A counterargument could be that xp_* is
not self explanatory. Well, neither is pm_*. If anyone is interested
in what those packages are (that xp stands for X11 protocol),
descriptions will help. What do you think?

Maciej