[development] Confused: package value of info files
merlin at logrus.com
Thu Dec 21 00:41:01 UTC 2006
Earnie Boyd wrote:
> I have submitted a few info files for inclusion in the module and have
> at times pointed to node/101009 by the maintainers to say that package
> shouldn't be given. However, node/64279 doesn't state that but instead
> suggest "Your arbitrary grouping string" as the value.
From the above page:
If you assign a package string for your module, on the admin/build/modules page
it will be listed with other modules with the same category. If you do not
assign one, it will simply be listed as 'Other'. Not assigning a package for
your module is perfectly ok; in general packages are best used for modules that
are distributed together or are meant to be used together. If you have any
doubt, leave this field blank.
From the above page:
If your module comes with other modules or is meant to be used exclusively with
other modules, enter the name of the package here. If left blank, the module
will be listed as 'Other'. In general, this field should only be used by large
multi-module packages, or by modules meant to extend these packages, such as
CCK, Views, E-Commerce, Organic Groups and the like. All other modules should
leave this blank. As a guideline, four or more modules that depend on each
other (or all on a single module) make a good candidate for a package. Fewer
probably do not.
If used, the package string is used to group modules together on the module
administration display; the string should therefore be the heading you would
like your modules to appear under, and it needs to be consistent (in spelling
and capitalization) in all .info files in which it appears. It should not use
punctuation and it should follow the Drupal 5 capitalization standard as noted
> I think that the original idea was for package to be used by those module
> packages that contain more than one module to group their package together.
This is correct.
> Can we have a consensus for what value should be given for 5.0 to package and
> can we update both nodes with the consensus?
We have consensus already. Please do not muddy the waters further.
More information about the development