On 02/07/07, Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/7/2, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 02/07/07, Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 2007/7/2, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > Seperating package names and package file names is a ghastly > solution > > > > > to the problem, if I want to manually download a package called > > > > > nvidia-drivers, I should be downloading a file called > > > > > nvidia-drivers.***, not NVDAgraphics.***. > > > > > > > > Why does that matter? > > > > > > Principle of minimum surprise. If the name is self explanatory, you > don't > > > need to figure out what's inside, and you lose less time. Maybe the > nvidia > > > thing is not a good example, but just go through the output of pkginfo. > The > > > point now is that you are not able to retreive individual packages for > > > Solaris Express or Solaris 10, so maybe Solaris users are not used to > the > > > need of this "self explanatory" thing. At the same time, the version and > the > > > architecture on the name are quite useful in lots of cases. > > > > There is always going to be some surprise. > > > That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about surprise at all. > > > On debian-based systems I > > usually found packages using apt-cache search, its very rare that what > > I actually want can be found by just blindly doing apt-get install. I > > think the same thing applies here. > > > And then, when you find problems, you will need to handle packages > individually as files, do you think that it is a good idea to have different > names in the interface than in the filename? SUNWckr???
What problems? I don't see it as anymore of a problem than the whole meta-packages or clusters that GNU/Linux distributions often use and that Solaris uses as well. > > In addition, the loss of compatibility, I would imagine, is far more > > important than a minor inconvenience that could be alleviated by > > better tools. > > Indiana is about attracting the users that are not on the platform yet, not > the ones that are already using it. Compatibility is granted within the > Solaris world already. I thought that Indiana was exactly about that, taking > the whole potential of the OpenSolaris technology and expose it easily to a > new user base. If we get sticked into compatibility issues, then there is no > point on indiana at all. That's where I will have to disagree. Solaris has proven that compatibility issues do not prevent innovation. So far I haven't seen good reasoning as to why package naming matters so much that it would prevent innovation necessary to attract users to a platform. If package naming is really that much of an issue, then I could probably sit here all day and show you the rather convoluted and unhelpful names of packages I find on many GNU/Linux distributions most of the day. I do not believe that a tool cannot be provided to make it easy to find and manage software that does not rely solely on arbitrarily chosen, and not always helpful, package names. > Indiana should be designed for the long term, as good as possible. Of > course, compatibility with Solaris should be kept whenever possible, but it > shouldn't stop meaningful problems. In the grand scheme of things, I sincerely doubt package names are going to be what stops adoption of any OpenSolaris based distribution. I think there are many other things that are far more meaningful in the long run. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
