Op zondag 20 november 2011 22:36:06 schreef nicolas vigier: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Samuel Verschelde wrote: > > I'm not sure about it. I see the benefits, but to me there is a major > > drawback: they are not user-friendly : > > - current names are readable, new ones aren't, they're just technical > > Adding capitals and replacing / with spaces does not make the name more > user-friendly. If we want to be friendly with users, we should not > confuse them by calling the same thing with different names all the time. > The naming scheme for medias that is used almost everywhere including > on mirrors is i586/core/release, not Core 32bit Release. > > > - current naming scheme doesn't bother you with arch information, except > > on 64 bits system and only for 32 bits media > > That's the problem. Sometimes the arch is included, sometimes it is not. > And sometimes two names can refer to different things (Core Release is > not the same thing on x86_64 and i586 installs), or two different names > can refer to the same thing (Core Release on i586 is the same as Core > 32bit Release on x86_64 installs). > > And 32bit is not more user-friendly than i586. Sources is not more > user-friendly than SRPMS. We should call the same thing with the same > name all the time. [...]
I disagree with you here, I'm all for consistent media names that are easy to complete, but "Core Release Source" is more userfriendly than "SRPMS/core/release" . i'm pretty sure my dad would get even more lost than he is right now. imho "Cauldron Core Release (source)" is more userfriendly than "cauldron/SRPM/core/release". at least to people who don't even know what a path is. it's acceptable for me to: - no caps - better ordering - consistent arch adding but using pathnames, albeit the best consistency, is not good. imho we should be able in cli to use a unique identifier, but it doesn't have to be the name as seen. if we can use urpm* commands with the path name as identifier, that's ok for me too.