2007/7/2, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Let's say I want to package two different programs that are both
called allegro (unfortunately), but they both install to completely
different locations or provide completely different functionality.
Obviously, they both can't be called allegro, but, you could call one
SUNWallegro and the other FOOallegro. Of course, if Sun is the
provider of both, you're in trouble, but I digress ;)
The SUNW is not an issue at all, is the naming of the component itself what
what really worries me. However, putting the provider in the first place and
in uppercase, doesn't help either, anyway, that's not the main issue.
I never said they didn't. I just merely pointed out that dealing with
the package name alone is not adequate. That's why rpm (as an example)
provides an easy way to find what package a file belongs to using -q
--whatprovides options.
It would be really cool to not deal with them, still, you have to.
I don't think anyone is forgetting this is a community effort. The
current naming standards for Solaris were chosen so 3rd parties could
work together with Sun with less problems.
Well, I think that adding a meaningful word to the package is way more
useful than the provider itself. And the same time, most people, will try to
push their packages mainstream, so there is no such concept of provider in
most of the packages, so is better to have a general purpose conflict
resolution convention rather than one that was designed with enterprise
purposes within the Solaris context.
That would imply the current conventions are not sane, which is not
true. The current conventions were not chose arbitrarily, but rather
with purpose and great reasoning.
Okay, just a snippet of the output of `pkginfo | awk {'print $2'}`:
SUNWppm
SUNWpppd
SUNWpppdr
SUNWpppdt
SUNWpppdu
SUNWpppg
[...]
SUNWxwpft
SUNWxwpl
SUNWxwplr
SUNWxwplt
SUNWxwpmn
[...]
SUNWzfsgr
SUNWzfsgu
SUNWzfskr
SUNWzfsr
SUNWzfsu
Do you call this sanity? Does it makes any sense? Now, do `dpkg -l | awk
{'print $2'}` and compare the differences on the meaningfulness of most
packages from both sides. (Of course, if the project name is cryptic
already, that's not a package naming issue).
So...
Should we change everything to make it just look like
Linux/Debian/Fedora/Whatever?
No. That's not my point.
Can we do any better?
Definitively yes.
--
Un saludo,
Alberto Ruiz
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
