Hi Phil,
Am 18.10.2010 um 18:46 schrieb Philip Brown:
On 10/18/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote:
On the package name length topic, opk recently came across
libpyglib-2.0-python.so.0, which yields CSWlibpyglib-2-0-python0, a
24
characters long pkgname. Current restriction in checkpkg is 20
characters for both pkgname and catalogname. Is it something we
intend to keep at all times, or is it OK to exceed this default in
cases such as this long soname?a
Reguarding "at all times"... either something is a limit, or it isnt.
We've gone over this before, multiple times, since the start of CSW.
There needs to be "a limit", it's insane for it to be unlimited.
Whatever we pick as a limit, some things are going to hit it, and will
need to get tweaked.
It doesnt make sense to go upping the limit every time something
hits it.
20 chars is the limit for multiple reasons. Some of them include:
- preserving meaningful display on pkginfo
Nope, pkginfo calculates this dynamically in Solaris 10:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/svr4pkg/pkginfo/pkginfo.c
Solaris 9 works the same, I just checked (and even Solaris 8, btw.)
- preserving meaningful display on terminal output
- preserving meaningful display on weekly summaries.
In times of RSS the weekly summary should be no argument against
making the package name longer.
Remember, our version string is now extra long too, so software name
and package name need to be kept short to compensate for that.
This doesn't help on packaging e.g. Perl modules. Having
catalogname != CPAN upstream name is a *real* burden, IMHO
much larger than having a couple of long lines.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
