Re: MBF alert: packages with very long source / .deb filenames
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >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.
>> So what's a reasonable name length limit then? 80? 150? 2000?
>Do you want it to actually work worth a damn (i.e. not croak on ext2-4, xfs
>and btrfs at the very least)?
>Don't let it go over 250 *bytes* (not characters. UTF-8 and all that...).
>We really need to curb the long name insanity in the head. And might as
>well do it in a way that does not hinder our hability to get data where it
>is needed, i.e. keep it under 100 chars.
I'm pushing for a little less than that, then the Joliet problems go
away. We get an absolute maximum of 103 (Unicode) chars there, so I'm
going to push for a max of 90 for normal uploads. That allows for
small amounts of growth for security updates etc.
>There really is no excuse for such long deb names. If a naming convention
>"requires" it, fix the buggy naming convention.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back