On Sunday, 15. February 2009 15:16:44 Bryan Østergaard wrote: [Renaming packages] > I doubt we can avoid this tbh. Name clashes are going to happen and we > can't solve all of them in a nice way no matter which solution we > choose for that.
Unfortunately, that's probably true. Anyway, I think we can discuss that again when it happens. > My vote would be for moving on with this idea and seeing how it'll > work out in practice. Any (good) reasons we shouldn't go on with this? Not from my point of view at least. The disk layout issue is technically important, of course, but that should be relatively easy to solve. Personally, I'd say we should simply use Ciaran's suggestion: /packages/default/XX/xxblah (even though some XX dirs will get huge) It's simple to grasp and looks like it can be extended if we find out it's insufficient. Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
