Re: package variant name
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:23:30AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I think they raise a valid point, we do mangle our package names to make
> them unique.
Sure, that's a "valid" point. Now explain why it's a bad thing.
> It would be more idealistic if we seperate the upstream name and the
> debian extension into seperate fields to keep it clear.
*Why*? What things would this let you do that you cannot already do?
> Im not sure about the best way to do it, it could be done by introducing
> two new fields, and preserving the Package: field for use as the
> combination of the two fields.
>
> e.g.
> Upstream-name: nano
> Variant: tiny
Note that this has broken the ability to identify uniqueness with a
single string comparison. That makes it quite a lot more complicated
to work with.
Package: nano-tiny
Source: nano
This matches a search for ^nano, and it has a clear description field
- what more do you want?
If you want to depend on it for something, that's why we have
Provides and virtual packages.
> I appreciate its probably something that is unlikely to change becasue it
> would only have a superficial benefit, thought it was worth mentioning
> anyway.
If you can't come up with a real-world case where it is an advantage,
then it is not an advantage - it's random dribbling from the marketing
department.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Reply to: