On 02/07/07, Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/7/2, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Martin Man wrote, On 02/07/07 17:00: > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >> On 02/07/07, Daniel Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> 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? > > > > > > because if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck it must be a > > > duck... no need to call it chair if, in fact, it's a ... duck > > > > As I pointed previously, if we do it right, users wouldn't have to > > deal with package names. > > > > Anyway, think of it like a language (English vs whatever): In Linux > > you use something like > 'linux-restricted-modules-2.6.20-16-generic' > > plus 'nvidia-glx', while in Solaris you use 'NVDAgraphics'. > > > > In fact, do you really think these modern Solaris packages names are > > so terrible that we need to break the compatibility? :-? > > > > SUNWgnome-keyring-manager > > SUNWgnome-character-map > > SUNWgnome-system-monitor > > SUNWperl-authen-pam > > SUNWperl-xml-parser > > SUNWevolution-webcal > > SUNWevolution-exchange > > Those ones are right, indeed. However, what happens with ones that still > terrible? There are hundred of them. Are we going to keep them wrong? I > thought that this was supposed to fix all those kind of things. If we are > not going to fix those kind of things, then, I can't see any point on > Indiana. > > Once all this was started, the promoters of the ideas talked about fixing > things that haven't been fixed before due to backwards compatibility. Now, > everyone argues that anything should be fixed due to backwards > compatibility.
I don't see where anyone has said that. I also don't see how the existing package names are "broken." To say they are broken would imply that they are wrong, which they are not. > However, at this point, what really worries me, is that anyone with > authority enough is not closing the no ending threads. Or at least, stating > a procedure to achieve a common conclusion that everyone of us should > accept. > > Many of us have learned using Linux. I'm indeed one of those, but I > > do understand that we don't need to copy it in every single aspect. > > Nexenta is there for the people who want 'Linux with a OpenSolaris > > kernel', but I think we want something more than that for Indiana. > > I haven't sugested copying. But Indiana is an opportunity to fix things, and > in my opinion, the current package names used, it's something that should be > fixed for the sake of usability. But let's be certain we're fixing things that are actually broken, and while doing that, ensure that all the desires of the community are met, even those that you may not want to, such as backwards compatibility. -- 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
