More "speaking" repository names

salve

i think the actual naming convention doesn’t match the reality.
i would prefer more characteristic matching names like “rolling”, “halfRolling” and “gtk”.
why? do you want a example?

desktop/aria2 1.32.0-1 [Installiert] Download utility that supports HTTP(S), FTP, BitTorrent, and Metalink.
why is aria2 in desktop? in my opinion there should be desktop application aka gui using applications but is this a gui application? i think not but it rolls faster then the core…

This doesn’t make any sense. What are you trying to say?

Not everything in [core] is semi-rolling. Not everything in [desktop] is rolling.

It might make more sense to simply move everything in [desktop] to [core] and drop [desktop]. Then you’d have [core], [gtk], [lib32], [testing] and [unstable].

i principle i want to say this:

i think the repository name should represent the packages thy are in to it.
you can have some views to this “problem”…like yours or like mine.
your idea is the better one :slight_smile: one the other hand …
my english isn’t good enough to express my thougths :frowning:

1 Like

Okey, so you want literal names for the repositories.

You want a naming convention for the repositories that either…

  • …denotes whether the package contains a GUI application or not - e.g. [cli] and [gui]
  • or denotes the release schedule for the package - e.g. [semirolling] and [rolling].

Is that about right?

this is my thought.
the repository should simplify packages handling and keep some packages separate (gtk, lib32, testing, unstabel) this is one purpose the other is “intellectual” one, thy transport a message…“chakra is kde and qt centric and semi rolling”

I can see why having CLI applications in [desktop] would be confusing to some - perhaps [applications] or [apps] would help, but imo names denoting the release schedule is senseless; repository names should reflect their content, the distro being semi-rolling is already explained on the website.

You’d end up having libraries in the repository anyway. I’d fully support simply moving [desktop] into [core] and calling it a day.

There’s also the discussion about merging [desktop] and [gtk] going on:

It is true that the vast majority of packages in core are not fully rolling and are part of the group updates scheme. This ofc excludes Plasma. But this is not the main idea behind the current implementation.

During the last change of repository names, the decision was to go with:
[core]
Everything needed to get a working Chakra system. It includes the kernel, xorg, drivers, Plasma, and the libraries they depend upon.
[desktop]
Everything a user can install on top the core system to enhance their experience. It includes all applications and the libraries they depend upon.

The separation between the above mostly exists to make it simpler to separate the packages that have to pass through [testing]. This is important for our packagers, as you should never update a package in [core] directly to the stable repositories. Also users should understand that outdated packages in [core] are not expected to be immediately updated, unless they are simple to upgrade and not part of a larger group.

2 Likes

While true, what you write doesn’t address the original issue raised.

indeed after tertris4 explanation but it could be a reason of marketing because a profile couldn’t be sharp enough and should be communicated often as is possible :slight_smile:

Sorry mate, you lost me at ‘marketing’.

really? sorry about^^
i don’t want sell anything but it’s similar so i will us that terms to make it clear.
a example: if you buy something expensive there should be a positive resonance in you and if the seller a good one he gives you the feeling you have done a good choice…
if this concept work you will come back or stay by the product.

our “product” is chakraOS linux it is a “product” with heart bleed and we want user to keep staying at chakra, right?
now a day it is not a big thing to install a linux it’s done in a some minutes… you know distro hopping? imagine: every pacman -Sy shows you the reason why you decision chakra was…

enough for now because it become to much rofl for the reader :stuck_out_tongue:

Haha no mate I meant “lost me” in a different sense: I meant I’m not interested in anything marketing-related, I only care about the technical side of things :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

My 2 cents: It seems a reasonable goal to choose repo names that most effectively communicate what they are for, and not communicate mistaken ideas about what they are for. I would call this “communication” and this is useful both in marketing and technology.

Tetris’ post was totally on point because he defined the real purpose of these repositories, which is nothing to do with desktop vs cli, or rolling vs half-rolling, Simple words that might fit the distinction he described could be “core” and “user”, or “base” and “optional” (or “additional”).

But it’s not clear to me that at any such simple names are going to communicate to a user the purpose of separating these repos without additional explantation. However, at least renaming “desktop” to something else would get rid of the mistaken impression that “desktop” seems to convey.

1 Like

“extra” is free nowadays, and a perfect match, if you ask me.

I think that due to the nature of our repos it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to fit in one word something that suits all the aspects involved (content, function, importance, release schedule, etc.) and would not require some sort of explanation for the user to understand what is going on.

So what I keep from this discussion is that, no matter the naming scheme, we should aim at offering an easily accessible and simple explanation of the repository structure//methodology for those that want to learn more on Chakra. This way our procedures we’ll be more transparent and better communicated.

1 Like

for everything except the plasma framework + qt?

1 Like

Something like that. To me, [core] is the essentials to get a working system, and everything else is “extra”, i.e. non-essentials.

what do you mean with a “working system” because there are some views possible? a working linux system? a working desktop system or something different?

1 Like

What I mean is whatever the definition of the default Chakra system is. What is included by default and on the live media.