The following is copied from comments on ticket #8679 (http:// trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8679#comment:6):
Funny thing. I'd rather change *the code* to reflect the common practice of using dashes in package names, i.e. taking the leftmost substring that *starts with a digit* (and of course is preceded by a hyphen) as the package version part. IMHO code that's unable to deal with dashes in package names is bad and should be fixed, not the names. We shouldn't introduce or keep restrictions that aren't really necessary, not only but especially if they rule out what's widely used. -Leif John Palmieri wrote: > Replying to leif: > > Funny thing. I'd rather change the code to reflect the common practice of > > using dashes in package names, i.e. taking the leftmost substring that > > starts with a digit (and of course is preceded by a hyphen) as the package > > version part. IMHO code that's unable to deal with dashes in package names > > is bad and should be fixed, not the names. We shouldn't introduce or keep > > restrictions that aren't really necessary, not only but especially if they > > rule out what's widely used. > > First of all, what's widely used in Sage is the convention here: everything > after the first hyphen is the version number. Look at the names of the > standard spkgs to see this. > > Second, you might be right, but this is not the right place to discuss design > decisions like this: sage-devel is. > > Third, this is an issue which will only arise for developers -- people > producing new spkgs -- and they should be able to handle using hyphens or > underscores according to the conventions. So it's not a big deal. Replying to jhpalmieri: > First of all, what's widely used *in Sage* is the convention here Well, I didn't talk about common *spkg* names (of course they follow the old rule). Note that many spkgs are patched upstream packages, so their (original) names won't necessarily follow *Sage's* naming convention; there are indeed yet packages that had to be renamed. > Second, you might be right, but this is not the right place to discuss design > decisions like this: sage-devel is. The thread "ends" with a link to this ticket, whose description (re-)states the convention, while the thread's title only mentions the *mode* package; but never mind, I'll repost it there. ;-) > Third, this is an issue which will only arise for developers -- people > producing new spkgs -- and they should be able to handle using hyphens or > underscores according to the conventions. I think there's (with intent) no sharp line between Sage developers/ contributors/users; think of optional "third party" (s)pkgs. -Leif P.S.: I didn't want to blame your work; by "bad (code or style)" I meant the old (intended?) "design decision". Code should follow (separate, independent) specifications, not vice versa. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
