On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> | The pkg_name, like service names, can be split into a category,
> | subcategories, and a basename. This namespace might be populated
> | with "manifest" and other metadata endpoints, as well as the SHA-1
> | names of the package's included files. (Although the direct access
> | to properties of the svc FMRI scheme has been rarely used.)
This is news to me. Are you talking about a fragment identifier?
pkg://authority/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | 2.2. Domain-name-based escape
> |
> | At any point in the category hierarchy, a safe namespace can be
> | created by using the forward or reverse domain name, either as a
> | subcategory or as a comma-led prefix to a subcategory or package
> | base name.
Why not just operate in a different authority? Wouldn't we want package
maintainers *not* to publish into other authorities? If there's an
aggregator with a push model, might we not prefer to allow the aggregator
to present packages from multiple authorities in a single repository?
> | 2.2. Locally reserved namespace
> |
> | The top-level "vendor" category is reserved for use by organizations
> | providing additional.
You don't say. :)
> | FROM TO
> | application/web/firefox web/firefox
> | application/compiler/gcc4 compiler/gcc4
> | library/c system/library/c
> | kernel/generic system/kernel/generic
While it's certainly nice to be able to refer to the first in a shortened
form, aren't we already doing that? I'm not sure I see the "appeal" of the
rotation. It just seems inconsistent to me.
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
