On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > 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.
For someone who doesn't know anything about our media policy, both names are equaly meaningless. If we want them to understand something, what is needed is a description text of the medias. > > 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. Why ? > > 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. Having multiple unique identifiers for each media is not what I would call user-friendly. We already have the name as unique identifier, there is no need to add an other one.