Re: dpkg -s and architecture
Ian Jackson writes:
>
>Rob Browning writes ("Re: dpkg -s and architecture "):
>> Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>> > Note the recent decision about parseable filenames. The filename
>> > in the archive wioll be (but ins't yet):
>> > replacehyphenswithunderscores($packagename)-$version.$arch.deb
>>
>> Great, I didn't know it was decided.
>
>It was discussed on debian-private last week or so, and noone
>objected. Perhaps they were all too tired.
>
>> Just to make sure I understand. Is this just for the file names, or
>> are we actually changing the package names too?
>
>Just the filename. Changing the package names is major hassle.
>
>> I assume that we need
>> to change our debian.rules to generate files with underscored package
>> names...
>
>Only if the package name has hyphens :-).
Ehh, underscores (half the packages have hyphens only a couple have
underscores).
>Andy Guy writes ("Re: dchanges, architecture component, parseable filenames ")
>:
>.
>> Is that backwards and confusing. Why not disallow _ in package names
>> and use it as the seperator?
>
>What, like dpkg_1.0.7.i386.deb, ncurses3.0-dev_1.9.8a-4.i386.deb ?
>(As opposed to dpkg-1.0.7.i386.deb, ncurses3.0_dev-1.9.8a-4.i386.deb.)
>
>I think this is more confusing. _ reads as less of a break than -,
>IMO. Furthermore it seems that many people find _ very unaesthetic,
>and using it only where there's a - in the package name makes it
>appear a lot less ...
I think they read about the same (also _ is often used where a space
is wanted but not desired). Isn't it more confusing that a
package *named* ncurses3.0-dev but has a file name that begins
ncurses3.0_dev?
Andy.
Reply to: