On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:23:30AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > I think they raise a valid point, we do mangle our package names to make > them unique.
Sure, that's a "valid" point. Now explain why it's a bad thing. > It would be more idealistic if we seperate the upstream name and the > debian extension into seperate fields to keep it clear. *Why*? What things would this let you do that you cannot already do? > Im not sure about the best way to do it, it could be done by introducing > two new fields, and preserving the Package: field for use as the > combination of the two fields. > > e.g. > Upstream-name: nano > Variant: tiny Note that this has broken the ability to identify uniqueness with a single string comparison. That makes it quite a lot more complicated to work with. Package: nano-tiny Source: nano This matches a search for ^nano, and it has a clear description field - what more do you want? If you want to depend on it for something, that's why we have Provides and virtual packages. > I appreciate its probably something that is unlikely to change becasue it > would only have a superficial benefit, thought it was worth mentioning > anyway. If you can't come up with a real-world case where it is an advantage, then it is not an advantage - it's random dribbling from the marketing department. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
