On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > Op zondag 20 november 2011 23:48:26 schreef nicolas vigier: > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > [..] > > > I disagree with you here, I'm all for consistent media names that are > > > easy to complete, but "Core Release Source" is more userfriendly than > > > "SRPMS/core/release" . i'm pretty sure my dad would get even more lost > > > than he is right now. > > > > For someone who doesn't know anything about our media policy, both names > > are equaly meaningless. If we want them to understand something, what is > > needed is a description text of the medias. > > no need to assume & judge me, i know pretty well that the name i supplied is > not a name we have.
I'm not judging anyone. Just saying that "Core Release Source" is as meaningless as "SRPMS/core/release" for someone who doesn't know media policy. > > > > imho "Cauldron Core Release (source)" is more userfriendly than > > > "cauldron/SRPM/core/release". at least to people who don't even know what > > > a path is. > > > > > > it's acceptable for me to: > > > - no caps > > > - better ordering > > > - consistent arch adding > > > > > > but using pathnames, albeit the best consistency, is not good. > > > > Why ? > > it's imho and because of the reason and example above. > > > > imho we should be able in cli to use a unique identifier, but it doesn't > > > have to be the name as seen. > > > > > > if we can use urpm* commands with the path name as identifier, that's ok > > > for me too. > > > > Having multiple unique identifiers for each media is not what I would > > call user-friendly. We already have the name as unique identifier, there > > is no need to add an other one. > > noone said anything about "multitple unique identifiers". be that as it may, > from a user pov: if we have name + unique_id and GUI shows name, or we have > name + description and GUI shows description is more or less the same if 1st > name is similar to 2nd description. > > in short, if rpmdrake shows a short description instead of where name is now > and name is mentioned of lesser importance, i'm ok with this. > > that would indeed make urpmi commands use path and rpmdrake still show > (descriptive name/description) > > if that's what you mean, maybe you should've been more clear on this. then > i'm > sure even Stormi agrees... I don't understand what you're talking about ...
