Le Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:45:05 +0200, Thomas Bächler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> 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!
>
Hi all,
/me definitivelly convinced by this :)
--
Salutations,
kozaki.dev
[~] > Arch, Mandrake~iva x86_64 & Ubuntu Linux
____________________________
( 2.6.15-ARCH i686 GNU/Linux )
( i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor )
----------------------------
o ^__^
o (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
Et puis Linux, c'est bien sympa, mais la personne qui pleure quand ce
qu'il faut faire est plus compliqué que double cliquer sur une icone,
comment elle fait ?
> http://c.laloy.free.fr/howtos/linux/
Arch Linux - 0.7.1 "Noodle" also on :
Desktops i686 Pentium II (Deschutes) & Pentium III (Coppermine)
Laptops Dell Latitude L400 & Toshiba Portégé 7200Series.
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
