Re: Squeeze backport suite names (was Re: New Backports Suite created)
> I mean, if I know what squeeze is and I know what wheezy is, then the
> name squeeze-backports-from-wheezy is 99% clear about what that is;
>
Well, if there is going to be an upgrade path from lenny+the new
repository to squeeze+squeeze-backports, then really it'd be
'lenny-backports-of-squeeze-backports-from-wheezy'.
Ultimately, it strikes me as rather futile to try and describe it
accurately in its name, and nor is that a common way to name things.
E.g., they're not called "Apple-Easy-To-Use-Portable-Music-Player",
they're called iPods. Most parents don't name their kids
"Boy-Brown-Curly-Hair". I'd hazard to say the vast majority of product
names aren't really descriptions of what the product is.
End-user documentation (and GUIs, etc.), should, I believe, feel free to
introduce the repositories by a description. That's where the
userfriendliness work needs to be done. And the user-friendly repository
selection tools can label *-backports and -*backports-sloppy however
they want, possibly not even including the word 'backport', as that's
really technical jargon.
The ftpmaster's and archive maintainer's refusal to consider changing it
for lenny makes perfect sense to me; it's probably a PITA. The refusal
to change it for squeeze-backports makes sense as well, as its a
technical detail that will wind up in various programs, guides,
configuration files, etc.
I'd love to say I have some good suggestions on how GUIs, etc. should
label the repositories, but unfortunately I do not :-(
Reply to: