Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Hi, Hugh.
> Robert G. Sohigian wrote:
>>
>> Why are these names so darn long?
>>
>> firefox-3.0a3.en-US.solaris11-i386.tar.bz2
>> firefox-3.0a3.en-US.solaris11-sparc.tar.bz2
>>
>> Here are some thoughts:
>>
>> solaris11: afaik, there is no such thing as "solaris11", and it
>> shouldn't be used
>
> Probably there will be a "Solaris 11" at some point though, and it's
> less cryptic than "snv". Even if there isn't, it's a less cryptic way
> of referring to "the version after Solaris 10". Consider a Solaris
> user who is not keeping track of OpenSolaris and does not want to
> download a build which won't run on Solaris 10 or earlier by mistake...
I think there was a marketing edict not to use "Solaris 11".
But, even more than that, /etc/release says:
bash-3.00$ more /etc/release
Solaris Nevada snv_61 SPARC
Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 26 March 2007
and, uname says:
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS yo-yo 5.11 snv_61 sun4u sparc SUNW,A70
afaik, there's nothing in how a system identifies itself that says
"Solaris 11".
>
>> i386: 386 went away awhile ago... why not x86?
>
> "isainfo" says "i386". As does "uname -p".
Still, as far as marketing goes, we're supposed to use "x86", correct?
>
>> en-US: are there other English versions which will be used?
>> Actually, why have "en-US" at all? I mean, if all we're delivering is
>> this version, I don't understand why we have to spell it out.
>
> Personally I'm OK if you want to shorten this, but one day there might
> be localized builds, and/or non English speakers might want to be
> warned that they are getting an English build.
Then they can add the description to the package name at that point.
Again, I'm looking at what we deliver.
Also, please note that the various localized versions of firefox
available here *all* have the
same package name:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html
>
> Are the length of the names really such an issue? It's not like you
> need to type them if you download the files via a browser. [Yes, I'm
> aware there's a chicken-and-egg issue here, but most people probably
> do have an older browser to start the download with.]
Yep, it's an issue. I've heard a few complaints about it. Also, when I
goto the page, with
2.x, the names are truncated to something like:
firefox-3.0a3.en-US.so...
>
>> So, something like:
>>
>> firefox-3.0a3-snv-x86.tar.bz2
>> firefox-3.0a3-snv-sparc.tar.bz2
>
> "snv" is too cryptic, IMHO at least, even though I know what it means.
IMHO, if folks aren't familiar with snv by looking at /etc/release or
uname, I think we
might question their ability to install packages. :)
Regards,
--Robs
>
>> would work just fine, right?
>
> Hugh.
