On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 15:18 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so > > > on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for > > > a common use case. Do we really care about supporting *very* long > > > names here? > > I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy > > that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit > > then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy. > > Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I > wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way. I don't think the longstanding naming policy for Perl binary packages has resulted in these very long names. (I believe I once had the longest-named binary package in the archive with libmaypole-plugin-authentication-usersessioncookie-perl, but that was still only 55 characters.) The really absurdly long names Steve found seem to be used for secondary source tarballs for some v3 source packages, where the file name essentially includes two full Perl module names. If that's specified in current Perl policy, it should be fixed (and can be fixed without confusing users). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part