[csw-maintainers] Packaging gems and package naming conventions

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Mon Oct 18 19:01:53 CEST 2010

No dia 18 de Outubro de 2010 17:46, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> On 10/18/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> On the package name length topic, opk recently came across
>> libpyglib-2.0-python.so.0, which yields CSWlibpyglib-2-0-python0, a 24
>> characters long pkgname.  Current restriction in checkpkg is 20
>> characters for both pkgname and catalogname.  Is it something we
>> intend to keep at all times, or is it OK to exceed this default in
>> cases such as this long soname?a
> Reguarding "at all times"... either something is a limit, or it isnt.
> We've gone over this before, multiple times, since the start of CSW.
> There needs to be "a limit", it's insane for it to be unlimited.

True, there's also the actual technological limit, which is 256 or 255
characters, if I'm not mistaken.  We have our own limit for other

> Whatever we pick as a limit, some things are going to hit it, and will
> need to get tweaked.
> It doesnt make sense to go upping the limit every time something hits it.
> 20 chars is the limit for multiple reasons. Some of them include:
> - preserving meaningful display on pkginfo
> - preserving meaningful display on terminal output
> - preserving meaningful display on weekly summaries.

Fair enough.

I'll have to improve checkpkg so that it doesn't first suggest a
package name and then complain that it's too long.  But I don't have
an implementation of a package name shortener.  Does anyone, so I
don't have to reinvent the wheel?

More information about the maintainers mailing list