Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>
>
> 2007/6/26, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>
> > I think SUNWCreq may actually be more than we want. Does anybody know
> > how big it and all of its dependencies is?
>
> To reinforce the "may be more than we want point", here's the graph
> Glynn posted:
> http://www.gnome.org/~gman/metacluster-cluster-mapping.png
>
>
> If we are seriously thinking about making solaris more appealing to
> linux (and any) users, we should seriosly rethink the way we name
> packages. For me, any of those package names means absolutely nothing (I
> know SUNW because I like stock market issues, but I think this SUNW
> thing is also redundant and meaningless for most people).
The SUNW is a namespace thing - it lets different groups create packages
without having to have a central registry of package names - Sun could
have a SUNWweb-server while Apache produced APCHweb-server and they
wouldn't clash.
As for the meaningfulness of names, the names really were cryptic when
the package name limit was 9 characters, and a lot of those old names
live on still - you can see GNOME took full advantage of the expansion
of the package name limit to 32 characters just before it was integrated,
and many newer packages have followed suit.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
