* Danek Duvall <[email protected]> [2009-03-17 18:11]: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:56:13AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > (I believe that we should have worked harder to make the service names > > unique than we did. The service and package populations are quite > > different in size, so I think we'll see more collisions.) I guess the > > problem here is that, when the Eclipse DTrace plugin comes along, there > > will be two "plugin/dtrace" packages (or "dtrace-gui" or whatever). > > Well, neither "dtrace-gui-plugin" nor "dtrace-gui" are in any way specific > to netbeans, and could be used for eclipse, too. So unless you're going to > counter with eclipse-dtrace-gui-plugin and netbeans-dtrace-gui-plugin, I > don't think your argument is complete. We're not going to be able to avoid > collisions simply by changing slashes to dashes (On Dasher! On Slasher!). > If you want to avoid collisions, then we have to specifically avoid > consistent naming, which I think is worse.
I too prioritize consistency in the FMRI naming. The "I guess" phrasing can be read as "I concede". :) > Besides, I don't think we're going to see that many collisions, anyway. > In the specific example of a dtrace plugin, we're likely to see one per > IDE, which will likely be on the order of half a dozen, which I don't think > is unmanageable, particularly if you're able to use globs in the FMRI: > eclipse/*/dtrace, which I think is one thing that is not possible on the > SMF commandline. Good point. > > > I'd also like to say that I don't really like "develop" as a component > > > here. Let's stick to nouns. I'd be happier with "devel" or "dev", as > > > "development" is probably too long. > > > > I think we chose "develop" over "dev" because of "device". > > Okay, scratch "dev"; what about "devel"? I would be okay with "devel" or "develop". I would like to get Dan's comments as well, as he proposed one possible developer tools naming convention. > > > > unbundleds/OpenOffice: > > > > > > > > 1. Not a system package. Looking at your full fix, I would suggest > > > > either command/openoffice or maybe editor/openoffice. > > > > > > application/openoffice? Or is that too generic? Both command and editor > > > feel a bit low-level to me. Commands are things like ls, or even vi. > > > Editors are more like vi. If application is too generic, perhaps "office" > > > as the class of application? Do we want to stuff that under "application" > > > -- application/office/openoffice, where you might also have > > > application/crm/siebel, application/graphics/photoshop, etc? > > > > "office" would be fine with me. There are other "office" instances. > > But at the top level, rather than stuffing everything under "application" > (as part of your "let's rotate differently" spiel)? Yep. - Stephen -- [email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
