[csw-maintainers] Packaging gems and package naming conventions

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Tue Oct 19 11:30:43 CEST 2010

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 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.
> 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.

C'mon, you cannot be serious. We are entering the second decade of the
21st century... The limit that you arbitrarily impose is 10% of the real
limit. BTW, at the august technical summit we decided that this must
change to reflect the real world. As an example, this impose changing
Perl modules names to unrecognizable viz. upstream.

More information about the maintainers mailing list