Hi Phil,
Am 22.10.2010 um 23:09 schrieb Philip Brown:
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
+ benefits users as there is no need to look up a package name at
all because the name can "just be typed in"
- negatively impacts users, via readability issues
This can be easily circumvented as I outlined in my previous email.
Keeping existing limits on lengths:
+ benefits all users by keeping outputs consistently and easily
readable.
No real pro as this can be achieved with longer names too.
- 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.
- this search has to be done *by every user* who wants to install the
package
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
