[csw-maintainers] Package length again

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 19.11.2010 um 20:07 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Am 19.11.2010 um 18:19 schrieb Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 
>>> I think that the max allowable limits, simply state "max
>>> allowable",and that is fine. If there are collections of packages
>>> (such as perl modules) that have naming conventions beyond our global
>>> standard ones, that is something to be worked out for that area. It
>>> does not need to affect our global limits.
>> 
>> I am suggesting to raise the catalogname length limit to 30 characters.
>> 
> 
> but that would allow people to create non-perl packages, that had
> catalog names that would not, and could not, match the PKG names
> exactly.
> One of the big things about adjusting the name lengths, was that we
> were finally going to have exact parity between PKG name, and 'catalog
> name', from now on.
> 
> If you feel so strongly about the 1 char inequality for perl packages,
> then perhaps instead you should adjust the perl naming spec so that
> instead of
> 
> pm_xxxx
> CSWpmxxxx
> 
> it now becomes
> 
> pm_xxx
> CSWpm-xxx
> 
> Then you once again have full parity between catalog and PKG name.
> Plus it looks cleaner anyway. *and* matches what we are doing in other
> areas, such as python module naming.

Generally I agree. But would you agree renaming all packages? Having
80% old CSWpmabc packages and 20% new CSWpm-xyz packages seems to
be the worst solution to me, although I really favor using more
hyphens as it reduces ambiguity and eases reading.
But unless this is true I would favor raising the catalogname to
match the leading package name by existing naming conventions, and
that would require a raise or not using the full package name length
for Perl modules without violating the current convention.


Best regards

  -- Dago