Re: MBF alert: packages with very long source / .deb filenames
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:18:12PM +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.
In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the
names here on two fronts:
1. Why the "bundle" ?
2. Why such a silly long name? What will happen if somebody comes
along with another perl module to add to this bundle, but with a
name twice as long? Does the source name for this tarball have to
contain the whole of the bundle name?
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.