Some of the good sides I pointed out about having an alias that is just a reference will die if you internalize the alias into the package itself, because suddenly you can have multiple packages claiming to be responsible for a given alias in your system, and I can't imagine anything good coming out of this.
Instead, a clean notion of alias would imply having a system that works entirely independently of such external convenience names, so the package system has fully defined references, but for the user's typing/thinking benefit, it can shorten some names after a centrally controlled database which can change over time. On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Martin Albisetti < [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why would the manifest carry the approved alias? This sounds like > > out-of-band information. > > Agreed it's out-of-band information > I think mvo's argument is so you could rely just on the packages to > reproduce a working system. Otherwise you would need to copy over the > installed packages + extra metadata obtained from the store on > download/install. > I don't think I have a strong opinion either way, though. > > > -- > Martin > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-- snappy-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
