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??? 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. 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. --
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
-- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz
_______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
