[csw-devel] SF.net SVN: gar:[2960] csw/mgar/pkg

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Trygve,

Am 01.02.2009 um 21:33 schrieb Trygve Laugstøl:
>> Well, we have multiple namespaces:
>>
>> (1) directoryname inside GAR
>> (2) catalogname of package
>> (3) packagename CSW<name>
>>
>> The following statements should be valid:
>> (a) For most packages the should be (2) == (3) with some exceptions
>> (e. g. Perl modules)
>
> The Perl modules getting prefixed with "pm_" is fine, but there are
> other discrepancies which I really don't like. But I guess that's  
> life.

If there are really ugly ones please make notes of it so we may address
it some day.

>> (b) By design we have 1:n for (1):(2) and (1):(3), because one GAR
>> description may produce
>>      several packages
>
> True, but most builds create a single package (not counting _doc etc),
> so it should be 1:1 in most cases.

Yes. And if it is not 1:1, (1) should be a prefix of (2)

>> (c) There should be at least one package with (1) == (2)
>>
>> For you there is
>>
>> (1) collections
>> (2) commons_collect and commons_collect_doc
>> (3) CSWajccollect and CSWajccollectdoc
>>
>> and hence neither (a) nor (b) nor (c) holds.
>>
>> I propose to use
>>
>> (1) GAR directory = ajccollect
>> (2) catalogname ajccollect and ajccollect_doc
>> (3) CSWajccollect and CSWajccollectdoc
>>
>> Having a hard-to-remember name is imho worse than having pkgname !=
>> catalogname.
>
> Yes, I have to agree with that. I just hope that it can get a better
> name that "ajccollect". How long can a name be?

IIRC there was a limit on the package name of 11 characters ages ago
which was then raised to 256. There is a cosmetical limit on the
catalog name, so it can be pretty printed on e. g. 'pkg-get -a'

> "commons-collections" is
> also one of the longer names, most are somewhat shorter.

Yes, that is too long.

>> Phil, how about adding this to the standards?
>
> +1


Am 01.02.2009 um 21:34 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 09:25:25PM +0100, Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
>> Phil, how about adding this to the standards?
>
> not sure which "this" you mean. that was a long email :-)

Well, the mapping stuff about package- and catalog-names and that  
they should
match and that they should be prefixed with -doc etc. Like what we  
discussed some
time ago:


> Am 30.08.2007 um 18:41 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Am 30.08.2007 um 18:28 schrieb Philip Brown:
>>> I agree splitting off "rt whenever it makes sense".
>>> I disagree that it makes sense, for libart ;-)
>>>
>>> "_rt" is normally used, when there is a separate, distinct  
>>> product, that
>>> people expect to use.
>>>
>>> Then, it is sensible to split into
>>>  product, product_rt, product_devel.
>>>
>>> The USES for these, would be
>>>
>>>  "product": used for "pkg-get install product" to have something  
>>> that
>>>             users actually expect to use directly
>>>  "product_rt":  as a minimal dependancy for other packages that have
>>>                 need of the shared libs, but not the end-user stuff
>>>  "product_devel": because the devel-related stuff is noticably  
>>> large,
>>>                  so only people actually compiling/etc stuff with
>>> 		 'product' need to install this
>>> Note that in the case of a library, and libart specifically,
>>> there is no separate end-user "product". there is nothin that it  
>>> provides
>>> in bin for users to use.
>>
>> That makes sense. Do you mind adding this to the standards page?

That should IMHO go to
   <http://opencsw.org/standards/build#versioning>


Best regards

   -- Dago