On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > So the reason for imposing a length restriction on version numbers in > particular is due to the UI display of aptitude? I'm a bit dubious that > this is a good justification for a Policy rule. dpkg -l has truncated > version numbers for forever at 14 characters, and I don't recall this > being a major issue in the past. The thing that started off this thread, > I thought, was the constraint on file name length in ISO images, which is > the total length and doesn't impose a constraint specifically on the > version.
Also there are no technical requirement for packages filenames in ISO images to be canonical packages names. Packages filename can be mangled to fit the medium, there is a program 'dpkg-name' to recover the canonical packages name. This requires the same mangling to be applied to the filenames in the Packages files, but this not an issue since the Packages file is in the same medium. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110501152739.GI19957@yellowpig
