[MTOS-dev] Welcome to MTOS-dev

[Jeremy Fluhmann]

On Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM, Byrne Reese <byrne at sixapart.com> wrote:

> I sent this prior to hearing Tim's movabletype-core suggestion. I must
> admit, it does have a nice ring to it. But it does not help communicate
> and
> disambiguate the license.
>
> Do people have strong feelings about this suggestion?


I would vote for movabletype-core *if* it is truly a base package that any
other movabletype-* is/would be based upon (I'm not familiar enough with it
to know if this is true or not).  For instance, on a fresh install of
Ubuntu, if I'm installing movabletype-enterprise, I should be prompted that
movabletype-core is required and will be installed.  Otherwise, if MTOS is
it's own package and not required by any of the other MT packages (minus
plugins and whatnot), then I would rather see it as movabletype-opensource
(as it is named Movable Type Open Source, and not "the open source version
of Movable Type").

I've also seen several 'packagename-common' packages, if looking for Yet
Another Package Name Suggestion.

Jeremy


>
>
>
> On 12/13/07 12:26 PM, "Byrne Reese" <byrne at sixapart.com> wrote:
>
> > In the interest of progress then, let me summarize what I have heard so
> far
> > and see if don't have consensus.
> >
> > There have been:
> > * 3+ votes for movabletype-os/opensource (I am counting my own vote too)
> > * 1 vote for movabletype-* (for auto complete purposes)
> > * a minority of support for other options presented.
> >
> > So let's go with movabletype-os.
> >
> > If there are other package manager/writers out there, let's use this
> naming
> > convention for non-debian packages as well.
> >
> > Byrne
> >
> >
> > On 12/13/07 5:49 AM, "Dominic Hargreaves" <dom at earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:49:55PM -0800, Byrne Reese wrote:
> >>> It might... But the only concern I have is introducing any ambiguity
> about
> >>> what people are installing.
> >>>
> >>> Technically the product name for MTOS is "Movable Type Open Source" as
> the
> >>> name "Movable Type" by itself is reserved for our commercial product.
> >>>
> >>> Do you think it would be weird to call it:
> >>>
> >>> * movabletype-os
> >>> * movabletype-opensource
> >>
> >> I would be happy to go ahead with one of these names.
> >>
> >>> One of those would be my preference from a 6A perspective.
> >>>
> >>> But do you think those names would be too redundant? I suppose though,
> that
> >>> if we ever built a debian package for the commercial product we could
> call
> >>> it:
> >>>
> >>> * movabletype-pro (for the Professional Pack)
> >>> * movabletype-ent (for the Enterprise Solution)
> >>
> >> Yup, this makes sense.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Dominic.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MTOS-dev mailing list
> > MTOS-dev at sixapart.com
> > http://www.sixapart.com/mailman/listinfo/mtos-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> MTOS-dev mailing list
> MTOS-dev at sixapart.com
> http://www.sixapart.com/mailman/listinfo/mtos-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.sixapart.com/pipermail/mtos-dev/attachments/20071213/1f6f2c06/attachment-0001.html