On 03/16/2015 02:57 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > On 16/03/15 11:49, Martin Albisetti wrote: >> Indeed they do get easier. I think, though, it comes at the expense of >> being heavy-handed with how the ecosystem grows. There's a lot of >> first-come-first-serve for popular names, and makes it more common for >> renaming to have to happen down the like as competing apache's improve. > > I think this is OK. > > Developers can claim whatever name they want, first come first served. > > To INSTALL that package, I would need to say "I want that developers > package called <name>". > > No unofficial, developer package could be installed accidentally, > because the only way to install one of those would be to name the > developer explicitly, like: > > snappy install foo --by beuno > > The question is: > > * do I now have to refer to commands in that package as > foo.beuno.command, or > * can I just say foo.command (I prefer this) > > but that means that > > * if there is an "official" foo, I must choose between beuno's foo and > that one > * because foo.command :) > > I think the latter choice is reasonable to have to make. >
Looking at the 'foo.command' bit on its own... Not sure if you meant this all along, but I wonder if it makes sense to say after installing a developer package (eg, beuno's foo package) that: * you can always refer to the command as foo.beuno.command * you may also refer to the command as foo.command * if you install another developer's foo package, you have a choice of updating what foo.command does That way you can always you foo.beuno.command in your scripts if you want, but you still can use the shortened version. -- Jamie Strandboge http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- snappy-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
