[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package and package file naming and versioning



I've noticed that my favourite scheme doesn't seem to have been
discussed here.  This is to use `,' (comma) as the delimiter, rather
than `_' (underscore), in the format which has been much discussed
recently.

So you'd have
  dpkg,1.2.3elf,i386.deb
  xserver-8514,3.1.2-3,i386.deb
or (if we choose to remove the architecture when placing files in the
distribution areas):
  dpkg,1.2.3elf.deb
  xserver-8514,3.1.2-3.deb
(This is to be contrasted with the `_' versions:
  dpkg_1.2.3elf_i386.deb
  xserver-8514_3.1.2-3_i386.deb
  dpkg_1.2.3elf.deb
  xserver-8514_3.1.2-3.deb
)

The advantages over `_' are almost entirely cosmetic, I'm afraid, so I
can't come up with cast-iron arguments in favour of this scheme.

However, it does seem to me that while `_' generally binds more
tightly than `-', it's the case that `,' binds less tightly.  This
means that people are more likely to read the filename the `right'
way (eg dpkg//1.2.3elf//deb instead of dpkg_1//2.3elf//deb or even
xserver///8514_3/1/2//3.deb, where more /s represent greater
separation).

It also seems to me that it makes the filename more of a `sentence'.

One possible disadvantage which might be asserted is that `,' is a
metacharacter more often.  This is true, but the contexts in which `,'
is a filename metacharacter and `.', `-' and `+' aren't are fairly
rare, especially in Unix.  There aren't any in FTP or any of the
Debian stuff at the moment.

Using `,' as the delimiter might also allow us to use _ in package
names or version numbers, though I'd be inclined to continue to use
the (perhaps lispish) `-' for consistency and because many people
(like me (-:) hate `_'s.

I don't know what criteria Bruce will be basing his decision on, but
if you prefer this idea for the reasons I've given it probably can't
hurt to mail him (or the list, if you have some other comment to add).
I'm sure that if he doesn't want the email he can delete it :-).

Ian.


Reply to: