Re: MBF alert: packages with very long source / .deb filenames
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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.
Looks very sane. I like it!
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot