[csw-maintainers] Package length again

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 19.11.2010 um 20:46 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Am 19.11.2010 um 20:07 schrieb Philip Brown:
>>> ...
>>> If you feel so strongly about the 1 char inequality for perl packages,
>>> then perhaps instead you should adjust the perl naming spec ...
>>> ....
>>> 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.
> 
> perl modules seem to have a high rate of "churn". So I dont think this
> is a bad thing: they will probably get mostly refreshed over the
> course of the next 12 months anyway, I would guess, to approach 100%
> 
> I think the added benefit of consistency with py_ modules, makes this
> the best choice.
> 
> The renaming IS going to be horrible, and yes I will probably get
> sulky about it at times, because of the extra work that *I* will have
> to do as well. :-}
> But it is the right thing to do I think.

Just my 0.02 € ...

We have a lot of invasive changes pending. Maybe it is time for a
"rebuild-all-stable" effort to really get rid of old stuff and
completely start over and rethink how a modern Solaris packaging
really should look like including IPS interop, fully consistent
package naming, the new release process...

Don't get me too serious, this may very well be late-night dream
(or nightmare :-) from me...


Best regards

  -- Dago