Hi Phil, Am 19.11.2010 um 20:07 schrieb Philip Brown: > On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Am 19.11.2010 um 18:19 schrieb Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > >>> I think that the max allowable limits, simply state "max >>> allowable",and that is fine. If there are collections of packages >>> (such as perl modules) that have naming conventions beyond our global >>> standard ones, that is something to be worked out for that area. It >>> does not need to affect our global limits. >> >> I am suggesting to raise the catalogname length limit to 30 characters. >> > > but that would allow people to create non-perl packages, that had > catalog names that would not, and could not, match the PKG names > exactly. > One of the big things about adjusting the name lengths, was that we > were finally going to have exact parity between PKG name, and 'catalog > name', from now on. > > If you feel so strongly about the 1 char inequality for perl packages, > then perhaps instead you should adjust the perl naming spec so that > instead of > > pm_xxxx > CSWpmxxxx > > it now becomes > > pm_xxx > CSWpm-xxx > > Then you once again have full parity between catalog and PKG name. > Plus it looks cleaner anyway. *and* matches what we are doing in other > areas, such as python module naming.
Generally I agree. But would you agree renaming all packages? Having 80% old CSWpmabc packages and 20% new CSWpm-xyz packages seems to be the worst solution to me, although I really favor using more hyphens as it reduces ambiguity and eases reading. But unless this is true I would favor raising the catalogname to match the leading package name by existing naming conventions, and that would require a raise or not using the full package name length for Perl modules without violating the current convention. Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
