Am Samstag, 3. November 2007 schrieb Andreas Radke:

Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?

If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.

Andy

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens nowhere else. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Saturday 03 November 2007, Tobias Powalowski wrote: | Am Samstag, 3. November 2007 schrieb Andreas Radke: | > Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to | > the maintainer? | > | > If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure | > upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. | > Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme | > over the default one or to show what additional package will | > provide the related Arch stuff. | > | > Andy | > | > _______________________________________________ | > arch-dev-public mailing list | > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org | > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public | | Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the | distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens | nowhere else. i tend to agree here. leaving everywhere our fingerprints is a good thing. from the pr-psychological reason, i would brand anything that is 1) easy to brand (up to the maintainer of the piece if it is easy enough or not) 2) not forbidden to be branded/changed by upstream rules 3) makes it look decent (starting opengl fireworks with the arch-logo displayed when you launch an kde editor for example is overdoing it) 4) do not associates us with something we are not associated with - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><

I actually think we should't do any branding. It annoys me when other distributions have their name all over everything, and make non standard distro specific options set. I think having an 'arch artwork' package that includes arch backgrounds and arch-color-themes is a good idea though. gnome-arch-artwork kde-arch-artwork stuff like that. An added benefit to doing that, is that if the artwork doesn't change, there is no need to pull in extra data along with the gnome specific apps, etc. Just my thoughts though. I would hate to see arch get overly 'brand happy' all of a sudden.

On 11/3/07, Simo Leone wrote:

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?

If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.

I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix.

I think what we need to do is be consistent. So yes, we need 'rules' - maybe 'guidelines' is a better word. Personally, and I don't know how possible this is, I'd love to see branding, but SEPARATE branding, if that is possible. As far as a guideline goes, I don't seen anyone with a huge problem with it. Eliott mentioned it being annoying, and I agree - branding can be intrusive. But at the same time, it shows a little "Arch Pride" as it were. So here's what I propose for a guideline: Branding is a good thing, but whenever possible try to make it a separate package. If that's not possible, then try to make the branding as unobtrusive as possible.

2007/11/4, Aaron Griffin :

On 11/3/07, Simo Leone wrote:

...

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?

If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.

I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix.

I think what we need to do is be consistent. So yes, we need 'rules' - maybe 'guidelines' is a better word.

Personally, and I don't know how possible this is, I'd love to see branding, but SEPARATE branding, if that is possible.

As far as a guideline goes, I don't seen anyone with a huge problem with it. Eliott mentioned it being annoying, and I agree - branding can be intrusive. But at the same time, it shows a little "Arch Pride" as it were.

So here's what I propose for a guideline: Branding is a good thing, but whenever possible try to make it a separate package. If that's not possible, then try to make the branding as unobtrusive as possible.

Here I summarized some ideas from this thread: * Brand anything that is 1) easy to brand (up to the _maintainer_ of the piece if it is easy enough or not) 2) not forbidden to be branded/changed by upstream rules 3) makes it look decent (starting opengl fireworks with the arch-logo displayed when you launch an kde editor for example is overdoing it) 4) do not associates us with something we are not associated with Don't get confused by "anything" - of course putting arch logo on every splash screen in _every_ application is overkill. :-) * Put all branding in separate and _optional_ {gnome,kde,xfce,etc}-arch-artwork packages where possible. I know that for some packages it is not possible to separate, so branding should be unobtrusive. (I guess changing browser's UA string is unobtrusive) Note that with this ("optional") logic arch-menus should not be _required_ by KDE/Gnome/Xfce as well (IMO). Are above ideas OK for us to agree on them? I'd like to hear if our KDE/Gnome/Xfce maintainers have the same opinion. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)