* [email protected] <[email protected]> [2010-02-05 17:48]: > >1) drive/network/<vendor>/<driver> (for example > >driver/network/sun/hme) is IMO an absolutely terrible idea -- it > >flies in the face of my experience with NIC drivers. > >Specifically, its often the case that a driver supports parts from > >multiple vendors, or that a vendor is renamed, disbanded, or > >acquired. (For example, would driver/network/digital/dnet make > >sense? Even knowing that the dnet parts were *most recently* an > >Intel product, and that the driver could theoretically support > >from dozens of other vendors of tulip workalikes? Or what about > >SUNWafe -- I don't see it in the above list, but > >driver/vendor/admtek/afe makes no sense at all, since ADMtek was > >acquired by Infineon. It also potentially creates problems for > >vendor names that really should have weird capitalization, etc.) > >Upshot, I'd *strongly* suggest dropping the <vendor> component, > >and just leave the <driver> suffix. > > > >2) I'd make the same comment about other packages like > >driver/storage/sas/pmc-sierra/pmcs or > >driver/fibre-channel/qlogic/qlc. Drop the <vendor> component from > >the package name. The <driver> component has to be unique to > >operate correctly on the system anyway, so I don't see how a > ><vendor> component helps anyone. > > > >3) The same thing can be said about graphics drivers. > > The intent of the vendor subcomponent wasn't necessarily to capture the > vendor producing the chipsets but rather the one who owns the > specification. > > That said, I'm certainly not wedded to keeping the vendor name there > particularly if others have related concerns.
Let's drop it. Garrett's point about mergers is most convincing. - Stephen _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
