Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 17:27:39 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Also there are no technical requirement for packages filenames in ISO
>> images to be canonical packages names. Packages filename can be mangled
>> to fit the medium, there is a program 'dpkg-name' to recover the
>> canonical packages name.
>
>Exactly, we could also add a new option to dpkg-name to select which
>naming layout to use, for example:
>
> --layout=(default|msdos|iso9960|joliet|sha1sum|...)
>
>or something along these lines. Currently dpkg-split already has a
>--msdos option to generate a 8.3 filename for the split files, which
>could be deprecated in favour of dpkg-name instead.
>
>> This requires the same mangling to be applied
>> to the filenames in the Packages files, but this not an issue since the
>> Packages file is in the same medium.
>
>Well, this has already been solved long time ago, although the
>restrictions were different then, the dselect methods have supported
>the MSDOS-Filename field as a fallback to the Filename one. So the
>Packages file is usable not only for CDs/DVDs.
>
>The problem is that it seems that most (at least apt, cupt and smart) of
>the other front-ends do not support such field, so support would need
>to be added first. At that point the field could be named more
>appropriately I guess. I'm adding this to the things to discuss with
>dpkg front-end developer.
Please, let's not go this way. We're not talking about needing
incredibly limited filename lengths like 8.3 for FAT here.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
Reply to: