On 7/3/07, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote, On 02/07/07 20:44: > > On 7/2/07, Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > I disagree. Not only does it break compatibility, it does so for no > > good purpose. My experience with Linux was that descriptive names > > didn't enhance usability. There are far more important problems to > > fix in Solaris/OpenSolaris than package names. (Like what packages > > exist and what software they contain.) > > Exactly, do not fix it if it isn't broken. > > Users shouldn't have to deal with package names. If we can work that > out everybody would be happy: we keep it compatible while people can > work with packages easily. > > > One thing that hasn't been addressed is whether Indiana can > > use the SUNW package prefix in the first place? > > I suppose that it would be fine as long as they are compatible [1]. > In fact, I would encourage it for the sake of compatibility. > > 1.- So the new question would be, how to ensure they are compatible. >
I think a simple was mentioned before here on the list, that should keep both sides happy. Have a _long_name_list_ for all the various packages involved, and have the packaging (GUI/console app) lookup this list to find the corresponding SUNW package. This was the ed user does not have to see the unfriendly names, and Indiana would use be using the same stuff at the backend. Everyone happy. Anil _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
