Glynn Foster wrote:
> On 7/01/2010, at 7:42 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >> gnome2
> >
> >Can't this be "gnome instead" ? Do we really need it to be gnome2 ?
>
> I agree with Darren here. Given the way GNOME seems to be going, it's
> not clear there will be as defined a separation between GNOME 2.x and
> GNOME 3.x (if it ever exists) as there was with GNOME 1.x and GNOME
> 2.x. The project got rid of all versioning within the binary
> executable names, though did make the libraries parallel installable.
>
> >Basically why doesn't the pkg(5) versioning deal with the "2" part.
>
> I would have assumed this too.
>
> FWIW, Ubuntu doesn't seem to include the version in the package name
> for applications or utilities, but does for libraries. It might be
> something to consider for consistency/familiarity?
A version number is needed in the name of the package in order to allow for
parallel installation of multiple versions; we don't support parallel
installation of multiple versions of the same package name. If we don't
anticipate that situation, then we can rely on the package version alone.
Where the version is placed in the name is dependent on the situation. It
could be placed in a high level in the heirarchy, as in the "gnome2"
proposals, or down at the tail, as in the various python packages ("24" vs
"26"). I'd suggest that if the component itself is usually known by a
versioned name, that it be in the tail even if there isn't any intent to
have multiple versions installed simultaneously.
I don't know if package naming across distributions is a useful familiarity
argument.
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
