Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:14:24PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >>Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>>Didn't I already vote on this? I can't remember. >>> >>>I say "just do it", too. >>> >>I'm waiting for resolution/consensus on the '-' vs. '_' issue...if we >>*are* going to rename auto*-[stable|devel] to auto*_[stable|devel], I >>don't want to have to rename the libtool packages too. I want them >>named "correctly" from the beginning. >> > > I thought that the consensus (i.e., Robert and me) was that '_' shouldn't > be special.
Correct, but I'm referring to a different '-' vs. '_' issue -- the one you outline below: > > I don't see any reason to rename libtool-devel to libtool_devel, though. > It is only a problem when there is a number involved after the dash. > There are other packages which use dashes in their names. right -- and robert is (tentatively?) advocating a CHANGE in that -- disallowing '-' within the pkgname field. It looks like you, me, and Corinna all prefer the status quo: dashes okay, and require parsing from R to L, so that the final two '-' delimited fields (of N >= 3) are VER and REL. So, xxx-yyy-zzz-VER-REL has five "fields" (even though we presume that xxx-yyy-zzz is the actual pkgname, '-' characters and all). When parsed R to L, you end up with field #5 =REL, field #4 =VER, and "the rest" = name. Robert is worried about the fragility of that scheme, and (may) be advocating a requirement so that: xxx_yyy_zzz-VER-REL has specifically 3 '-' delimited fields. No confusion. Field #1 =name. Field #2=VER. Field #3=REL. This requires renaming five existing packages, and impacts the naming of my proposed libtool packages. --Chuck
