[gst-devel] naming stuff

Andy Wingo wingo at pobox.com
Thu Jan 3 17:55:06 CET 2002

On Fri, 04 Jan 2002, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:

> * end-user-packages (redhat, debian) :
> - some people would like to have gstreamer in them, since people will be
> looking for packages called gstreamer-* if the thing is called GStreamer
> (duh).

either way...

> - some people think the core rpm (gst/gstreamer) should be called
>   gstreamer.  I personally think the core package should have the same
>   name as all of the others.  If we want gst as the base package name,
>   then let's please use gst and gst-(plugin) ...

let's do cvs magic so we don't have to move the repository, but make
gst-core an alias for gstreamer. we can do the same for gst-player. does
anyone have any objections? or just call it gst, i don't care :)
(gst-core is better for path names though, ~/src/gst-core/gst/...)

> - some people want plugin or plug-in in the package name for plug-ins,
>   some don't want that because it is shorter

plugin. please. call it consistency with GstPlugin (not GstPlugIn).
Also, there's no plug-out.

> * tarballs
> - my personal opinion is that the canonical name (the thing before the
> first -) should be the same as the package's and the same for all of the
> tarballs.  Others don't mind having various names

that's mho too. your opinion, that is.

> So, to make my point clear, I would like only one thing : that packages
> and tarballs share a common naming structure, preferably with the same
> canonical name, whatever it ends up being.

the other thing is that the apps should be gst-* too, imho. gst-launch.
gst-compprep. etc.

awaiting flames,


More information about the gstreamer-devel mailing list