David Engel wrote: > OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross > reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect > anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name > doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I missing?
Working towards consistent naming schemes is an excellent goal, but there will always be the defiant package that breaks something (ldso is a perfect example). So, an _optional_ cross-reference entry in the Packages file would be a fine way of fixing the problem names. I believe that several people posted regexps that covered (nearly) all cases. Quite beyond me, really. Here's a package that is begging to come out and break dselect: Package: g-- priority: optional section: devel maintainer: S.T. Box <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> version: 1.0.2 revision: 1 filename: debian-0.93/binary/devel/g----1.0.1-1.deb description: The GNU C++ compiler for inexpensive, set-top box designs. Sorry, but it just came to me. The point is that there will always be something that messes with our naming convention. -- Jeffrey Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
