Hey... > > sounds good. only i would make it singular: icon-theme-<foo>. > > The idea is that multiple variations on the same icon theme may exist. > >From what I can see, the Crux icon-theme currently includes only (a > subset of) the Nautilus Crux-teal theme. Perhaps Crux-eggplant or > another one gets added in the future. > > Look at it this way: icon-themes-foo is the collection of all foo > icontheme variants. That's correct even if there is only one variant at > this time. > Differentiating packages by name because they include one or multiple > iconthemes would be a Dumb Idea IMO. Placing all variants in a different > package would be driving the split (which I do favour on a level of > GTK/icon/WM themes) too far.
imho debian has a reputation to keep high here, we will never reach the 1.000.000.000 package limit if we don't split every single package into subpackages and virtual packages... *joke*. Actually there's the option of defining the _possible_ names for your packages... eg. icon-theme-foo metacity-theme-foo metatheme-foo ... This naming scheme would cover all the current elements of a theme, with an acceptable granularity. But, for starters, and to minimise maintaince costs you could simply put everything in the metatheme-crux package, and in a later stage (if themes start to reuse parts...) make the metatheme a package that depends on icon-theme-foo, metacity-theme-foo, gtk??-engine-bla, ... Why do I favor this ? Well... it would allow me to build a theme rather easy/quickly, and if I don't have the time to split it up... I don't have to :) just some ideas... -- regards, koenraad. FIT - FOSDEM Information Team
