On 23/11/2007, Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 01:54:33AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > As a result, I think that any hackery to try to omit these prefixes is > > > > a waste of time. > > > > > > I agree. Omitting the prefixes in the client would seem to be an > > > unnecessary hack. But I don't see a reason why the actual package > > > names need to include the SUNW prefix anymore. > > > > Which if you read my other posts, you will see I said. > > > > The discussion of package naming guidelines is entirely outside the > > realm of IPS. It is merely a tool for packages; not a guideline > > creator. > > Right. The original question got lost in the thread. Anil's RFE > was this: > > > *Modify the naming convention a little.. so we need the end user to > > see SUNW, FSW and SFE before the package names? how do we get around > > it? > > Think it is a valid request, though not for Imagine or indeed for > IPS. Maybe it is time to have another look at the package naming > guidelines. With the IPS FMRIs, prefixes are redundant.
I would agree prefixes are redundant; assuming you don't care about backwards compatibility for package installation, etc. That's hopefully where IPS metadata can rescue us to provide "old package names"; though perhaps that way lies madness. -- 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
