Re: [PATCH] Specify policy for use of revision IDs in version numbers
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:25:06AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 17:00:17 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > Well, this has already been solved long time ago, although the
>> > restrictions were different then, the dselect methods have supported
>> > the MSDOS-Filename field as a fallback to the Filename one. So the
>> > Packages file is usable not only for CDs/DVDs.
>> >
>> > The problem is that it seems that most (at least apt, cupt and smart) of
>> > the other front-ends do not support such field, so support would need
>> > to be added first. At that point the field could be named more
>> > appropriately I guess. I'm adding this to the things to discuss with
>> > dpkg front-end developer.
>>
>> Please, let's not go this way. We're not talking about needing
>> incredibly limited filename lengths like 8.3 for FAT here.
>
>Oh! I guess it was not clear from what I wrote above. I meant that as
>non of the other front-ends support MSDOS-Filename, then once and if
>support for shorter names gets implemented for the rest then we can
>use an updated field name and length restriction in line with current
>reality. Say, for example Short-Filename, and iso9960 file name length.
I'm not at all convinced that we need to be messing with the filenames
and going to all the effort of extra fields, that's what I'm
saying. The lengths supported in the filesystem are *plenty* IMHO.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
Reply to: