After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 778531 - Rename to gnome-recipes
Rename to gnome-recipes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: recipes
Classification: Other
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Recipes maintainer(s)
Recipes maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-02-12 14:42 UTC by Jeremy Bicha
Modified: 2017-02-13 03:19 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Jeremy Bicha 2017-02-12 14:42:18 UTC
While working on packaging this app for Debian and Ubuntu, I got an almost immediate request [1] to rename the app from the generic 'recipes' to 'gnome-recipes'.

The app already identifies itself as GNOME Recipes in its .desktop, window title and About window.

Most gnome-apps with generic names have named their projects under the gnome- namespace (gnome-boxes, gnome-documents, gnome-photos, etc.) even if they identify themselves generically on the GNOME Desktop (Boxes, Documents, Photos).

I apologize for the inconvenience but at least this app isn't packaged in distros yet (it doesn't look like it's officially in Arch or Fedora yet).

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/854951
Comment 1 André Klapper 2017-02-12 15:35:22 UTC
Which problem would this solve?
Comment 2 Jeremy Bicha 2017-02-12 15:58:57 UTC
Well, it would allow the package to be named the same in Debian/Ubuntu as it is upstream.

It would match the naming convention used by all other apps introduced in GNOME 3.

I feel like /usr/share/recipes/ should be a generic standard recipe directory but I don't think that's how its currently intended. Using /usr/share/gnome-recipes/ (and .local/share/gnome-recipes/ instead fixes this problem)
Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2017-02-12 16:22:09 UTC
I don't mind renaming per se, but there will be a bit of a transition problem for existing users.

> I apologize for the inconvenience but at least this app isn't packaged in
> distros yet (it doesn't look like it's officially in Arch or Fedora yet).

I'm going full flatpak here, so I am not sad about lack of distro packages at all. For the flatpak, none of these are problems.
Comment 4 Jeremy Bicha 2017-02-12 16:42:36 UTC
The transition problem is mostly just moving the ~/.local/share/recipes directory, right?

Any distro packages should be able to create transitional packages to depend on the newly named package. But like you said, that doesn't matter for Flatpak.
Comment 5 Jeremy Bicha 2017-02-13 03:19:03 UTC
Thank you for your quick action!