On 4/4/06, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frugalware uses its own extension to show the difference (as far as I know).
It doesn't mean if it's 3 or 4 letter long, as long as it is short. In filenames like " rc.local" I consider dot as a separator between words.
*.pacman or *.arch would also be nice.
I meant that *pkg.tar.gz is clear, maybe more than needed for day-to-day use.
If you provide me with a prk programm that's even quicker than 60 seconds. And if I want to develop prk files, this way or another, I will have to read something about it and discover, that they can be extracted with 7zip.
I was thinking about taking one file for another one (because the're called the same) and other mistakes of that sort.
On 4/3/06, Benol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
Wrong. There are currently 2-3 other distros also using pacman.
Frugalware uses its own extension to show the difference (as far as I know).
3 letter extensions are an artifact from DOS that people are stuck on.
If you like 3 letter extensions so much, feel free to rename every
"foo.conf" file you fine. Also, rc.sysinit, rc.local, rc.shutdown,
and friends. Oh yeah, udev.rules too. I can go on forever.
It doesn't mean if it's 3 or 4 letter long, as long as it is short. In filenames like " rc.local" I consider dot as a separator between words.
File extensions are there to be descriptive and tell *what* the file
is. There is no regulation or even de-facto/du jour standard that
says TLNs[1] accomplish that. In fact, if you are arguing that
'pacman' warrants a unique file extension, what's wrong with
"foo.pacman " or "foo.arch" or "foo.archlinux" (again, I can go on).
*.pacman or *.arch would also be nice.
You also pointed out that .pac is " VERY clear, that this package is a
package and tar archive compressed with gzip at the same time" - how
the hell is this clear? You have foreknowledge. That's not clarity.
What part of ".pac" makes it "VERY clear"?
I meant that *pkg.tar.gz is clear, maybe more than needed for day-to-day use.
Here, I just made a file
with a TLN extension that is arbitrary. It's attached. Please let me
know how clear the format is. And let me know how long it takes for
you to extract.
If you provide me with a prk programm that's even quicker than 60 seconds. And if I want to develop prk files, this way or another, I will have to read something about it and discover, that they can be extracted with 7zip.
[1] TLN: Three Letter Name
> 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".
Loosing them - if you lose a file, you lose it regardless of the name.
It could be named "NEVERLOSEME" and if it's lost, it's lost.
I was thinking about taking one file for another one (because the're called the same) and other mistakes of that sort.
Searching?
~/devel/extra$ find . -name gnomebaker
./gnome/gnomebaker
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
