[Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 00:24, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages.

What are you meaning by "Sugar Packages"? Is there a wiki page or
something I have missed?

> The reasons to not reuse "package" name - it is not regular
> (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because:
>
>  * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized
>    which is the core point of regular distros
>  * sugar "packages" still could be represented as regular packages to
>    support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will
>    look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http
>  * in most cases, "packages" will contain results of doer experiments,
>    e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular
>    distributions (at least in stable distro releases)
>  * in most cases, "package" maintainers will be their developers
>    because there is no need in any "packaging" work except supporting
>    an analog of activity.info file (for activities)
>
> The reasons to not reuse "activity" name:
>
>  * "packages" might contain not only activities but libraries, other
>    (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself
>  * it is about deploying content not about its quality
>
> The reasons to not reuse "bundle" name:
>
>  * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles
>    (e.g. .xo bundles)
>
> And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special
> name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has "gems", Python has "eggs".

Just wanted to mention that I have heard several times of the
difficulty that newcomers have with these names inspired in sugar
puns.

For us that have been thinking about Sugar every day for several years
now it may seem convenient (and fun) to have very distinctive names
but for the rest we are making it more difficult to think of Sugar.

I don't think we really need to be so afraid of using names that are
already being used in other contexts and that we can trust users to be
ready to discover any Sugar specificities. Just consider how these
alternatives sound to someone who is just starting to discover what
Sugar is:

Glucose -> core modules
Fructose -> core or demonstration activities
ASLO -> activities directory
IAEP -> sugar-general, sugar-discussion, ...
etc.

Regards,

Tomeu

> --
> Aleksey
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>