Re: Parsing package filenames (was: Re: New ftp method for dselect)
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I we can either rename existing packages, or use the double-dash. I don't
> care which. ...
The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
practice, minimizing package renaming, and minimizing mangling of
upstream naming and versioning.
PKG-VER-REV.EXT
PKG: free-form
VER: No '-' (perhaps necessitating mangling of upstream versioning)
REV: No '.' and No '-'
EXT: No '-'
-PKG and VER from upstream, mangled by maintainer only as necessary
-All parts required for all packages
-Debian maintainer to choose appropriate PKG and VER for debain-specific
packages and for packages which are splits or joins of upstream packages
> ... We must, however, make a decision reasonably soon. One of the
> biggest problems of Debian, and the one that still may cause it to fail,
> is it's design-by-committee nature. If we are to argue this issue for three
> weeks, we'd might as well quit now.
Past practice to terminate protracted discussion and move on to action
has been for Ian M to make a decision based on the info brought out by
discussion and proclaim that that's the way it'll be done. I'd accept
such a proclimation from you, barring opposition from Ian M.
Whatever decision is made, it should be expressed in updated packaging
guidelines on project/standards.
Reply to: