Bug#184368: sematic error, 2.3.1 The package name
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> >
> > Section 2.3.1 says:
> > "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9),
> > plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)."
> >
> > It should say something like:
> > "Package names must not consist of anything other than lower case letters
> > (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)."
> >
> > because it is not desirable, and not the current convention to make
> > packages contain all of the items in the list. eg why force apt to have
> > digits, plus and minus signs and periods. It would have to have a name
> > like apt00+-.. to be valid.
>
> Please do not push pedantic argument too much :-)
>
I'll try not to.
> Double negative expressions are error prone and difficult to understand
> for non-native speakers. I think it is fine as is since the original
> text uses "consist of" instead of "contain".
>
Perhaps, I still believe the meaning is that package names "must contain"
each of the different characters listed.
> BTW, I have never seen any package name starting any of "+", "-", or
> ".", nor I have seen any package name with repeated ".". I guess common
> sense rules.
>
A further part of 2.3.1 says:
"They must be at least two characters long and must start with an
alphanumeric character."
Which excludes packages that start with any of "+", "-", or ".". Given the
usual meanings of ".", I don't think it would be likely to see ".." in any
package name. I do not see how having a package name with ".." in it goes
against common sense rules, but I do see how it would be unlikely to have
a good argument for having it.
I like Julian's argument for inserting the word "only" into the sentence.
It was an option that I considered but I was worried about confusion
again. On reflection, it is a better sentence with "only".
Drew Daniels
Reply to: