On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:34:19PM +0200, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > Ok, just so that i get it right (please correct me if am wrong): > > 1) The software name is the one users should work with and we can/should > keep it in a consistent, readable, and "no-surprise" way.
yup. > This means i > can keep pm_datetimetimezone as software name for the DateTime::TimeZone > perl module. Yup. There IS also a limit on software name, for sanity purposes. it's just longer. > 2) The package name is limited (by us) to 20 chars, so that we need to > come up with a way to condense package names > 20 chars. > > pm_datetimetimezone -> CSWpmdatetimetz > pm_xmlatomsimplefeed -> CSWpmxmlatomsimplefd I dont think it is beneficial to try to enforce "one true way of shortening". It depends on the software name. Some collections of softwares obviously > Question: Is this self-imposed 20 char limitation worth have > discrepancies between software and package names? yes. we've had it for 6 years. It's reasonable. There's no decent reason to uproot the world to change this,just because a few software authors are insane. > Although i install packages via pkg-get or pkgutil and by > their software names, i often find myself dealing with packages by their > package names afterwards (pkginfo, pkgrm, /var/sadm/pkg/...). IMHO just > a source of possible confusion. as a side topic: what would make you have to do that sort of thing less? [as a regular sysadmin, not a pkg maintainer? ] _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
