Benol wrote: > Usability Tell me about that, how is foo-1.2.3-4.pac (or similar) more usable than foo-1.2.3-4.pkg.tar.gz. I install a package with pacman -S foo or with pacman -A foo<tab>, this is very usable.
> comfort see above, how would that be comfortable? You usually do not type the extension, so typing it will not cause you any discomfort. > and intuitiveness. So you think .pac or .foo would be more intuitive? I think .pkg.tar.gz is intuitive: When I look at it, I know that the package is a tar.gz archive, I know which tools I can use to examine it. I know how I could manipulate it if necessary and it adds a great deal of transparency of the problem, I can determine the exact format of an arch package within minutes. The extension just says what it is: it's a gzipped compressed tar archive containing a package. How could anything be more intuitive? > None of them is technical, none of them is real. > I did not want to start a flame and for the record: I am not flaming! _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
