Re: dpkg -s and architecture

[Rob Browning <osiris@cs.utexas.edu>]

>>>>> "I" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> writes:

I> It was discussed on debian-private last week or so, and noone
I> objected.  Perhaps they were all too tired.

I certainly didn't object.  I liked it better than the current
situation.

I> What, like dpkg_1.0.7.i386.deb, ncurses3.0-dev_1.9.8a-4.i386.deb ?
I> (As opposed to dpkg-1.0.7.i386.deb,
I> ncurses3.0_dev-1.9.8a-4.i386.deb.)

I> I think this is more confusing.  _ reads as less of a break than -,
I> IMO.  

Ah, now that's interesting.  I hadn't thought of it that way.  I guess
that would be a good argument for a different separator.  I definitely
liked the idea of making the file names easily parsable; I was just a
little opposed to the idea of the file name not matching the package
name.

Oh well, given your (valid) "_" argument, I probably would have voted
for double dashes:

perl-tk--b11.02--0.deb

but I can definitely live with the current decision.

--
Rob