On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Shawn Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/ 6/10 03:58 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> Won't users always want to use the short form? >> >> In that case, why inflict the hierarchy on the actual package names? >> Just use the basename as the package name, and it's what the user >> types, and is unique. >> >> Dropping the category hierarchy has some significant advantages: >> >> - It keeps the package names short and simple >> - there's a direct mapping between the user expectation and the >> package name >> >> Having the category as additional package metadata rather than part >> of the name would be a win in several areas: > > The category ("classification") is already separate. Please don't confuse > package namespace with classification.
I wasn't; but now I'm concerned. You're saying that there is both categorization and a namespace hierarchy? Either they match or they don't; and are either unnecessary duplication or causes of confusion. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
