Hi Phil, Am 19.11.2010 um 20:46 schrieb Philip Brown: > On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 19.11.2010 um 20:07 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> ... >>> If you feel so strongly about the 1 char inequality for perl packages, >>> then perhaps instead you should adjust the perl naming spec ... >>> .... >>> 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. > > perl modules seem to have a high rate of "churn". So I dont think this > is a bad thing: they will probably get mostly refreshed over the > course of the next 12 months anyway, I would guess, to approach 100% > > I think the added benefit of consistency with py_ modules, makes this > the best choice. > > The renaming IS going to be horrible, and yes I will probably get > sulky about it at times, because of the extra work that *I* will have > to do as well. :-} > But it is the right thing to do I think.
Just my 0.02 € ... We have a lot of invasive changes pending. Maybe it is time for a "rebuild-all-stable" effort to really get rid of old stuff and completely start over and rethink how a modern Solaris packaging really should look like including IPS interop, fully consistent package naming, the new release process... Don't get me too serious, this may very well be late-night dream (or nightmare :-) from me... Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
