Benol wrote: > For me it's just natural that PACMAN package (not any other manager or > distro, but pacman for arch) is called *.pac - I can google for them > (althought I know that it is not necessary :P). It just looks better. But I > can see, that I am the only one, who thinks, that 3 letter long extension is > better than one which is longer than the filename itself (but indeed, it is > VERY clear, that this package is a package and tar archive compressed with > gzip at the same time). Hm, I don't mind - cause I never type it. [tab] for president.
> You also forget about PKGBUILD -> foo.pkgbuild. For me the advantages are > obvious (loosing track of them, searching for a certain one, not overwriting > by mistake). But again, I might be thinking differently than the > "community". Hm, the programm is "defined" via the directory. If you download the tarball you get all you need. And for searching - you simply search after the directory an you get all you need. Therefore I do not see right sense renaming the PKGBUILDs, however I like the idea. -- Gruß, Johannes www.hehejo.de http://urly.de/6590 _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
