Peter Tribble wrote:
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.
It is really important to the GUI that we have some sensible way to
strip off redundant categorization information from the package names,
when displaying these packages in a Category a user has selected.
See: 9437 current multi-part name algorithm is goofy
The only sensible way to do this with the current scheme is to make sure
that the first categorization metadata in info.classification (allows
for multiple classifications) matches the first portion of the hierarchy
name for that package. If it does we can strip it when displaying the
name if the user has clicked on a specific category.
If they click on the All category we might choose not to strip them at
all of course.
I think having to continue with the current special categories approach
is bound to fail in the long term.
JR
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
