On 22/11/2007, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 22, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > As a user, I would expect to see the SUNW, FSW, and SFE before package > > names. > > I think it's ugly and obtrusive and I haven't seen yet how it helps > me as a user. Other package-management systems seem to get by by > calling things by simple unprefixed names. It's perfectly possible > that I'm missing some obvious benefit, though; what is it?
I expect to seem them because that is the standard Sun has set forth for package naming. Whether you think they "obtrusive, ugly, or whatever" is a subjective, personal opinion. The perceived benefit they currently provide is: * Ensuring a unique name for packages (in theory) * Identifying the source of the packages (by indicating which company they are from) * Grouping packages together by origin This was discussed many times before during the original package discussions. Since IPS provides for a rich set of meta data, a "non-abbreviated, un-mangled name" can be provided in the metadata and used in the packaging system instead of the actual "package installation name" for the purposes of searching and browsing. As a result, I think that any hackery to try to omit these prefixes is a waste of time. The metadata that IPS provides should be taken advantage of here for those users that prefer a different "way of doing things." -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
