On 10/21/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I think it's a good thing to distinguish between presentation and > data itself. Fitting information on a 80-column terminal is a > separate issue from having the information in the first place. You > can come up with a number of algorithms to fit that information on the > screen. I believe that having a consistent mapping between sonames > and package names is more valuable than the absence of a text > formatting step. >
Lets do a brief cost/benefit analysis here: Direct mapping of full soname -> package name, with no truncation + "benefits" maintainers. Although really only a small subset of maintainers, working on a small subset of packages - negatively impacts users, via readability issues Keeping existing limits on lengths: + benefits all users by keeping outputs consistently and easily readable. - means maintainers might have to occasionally do a little extra searching... ONE TIME, until then they put in the dependency lines, and then they'll know where to go from then on. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
