[csw-maintainers] Packaging gems and package naming conventions

Dagobert Michelsen dam at opencsw.org
Sat Oct 23 12:00:17 CEST 2010

Hi Phil,

Am 22.10.2010 um 23:09 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On 10/21/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Yes, I think it's a good thing to distinguish between presentation  
>> and
>> data itself.  Fitting information on a 80-column terminal is a
>> separate issue from having the information in the first place.  You
>> can come up with a number of algorithms to fit that information on  
>> the
>> screen.  I believe that having a consistent mapping between sonames
>> and package names is more valuable than the absence of a text
>> formatting step.
> Lets do a brief cost/benefit analysis here:
> Direct mapping of full soname -> package name, with no truncation
> +  "benefits" maintainers. Although really only a small subset of
> maintainers, working
>  on a small subset of packages

+ benefits users as there is no need to look up a package name at
   all because the name can "just be typed in"

> - negatively impacts users, via readability issues

This can be easily circumvented as I outlined in my previous email.

> Keeping existing limits on lengths:
> +  benefits all users by keeping outputs consistently and easily  
> readable.

No real pro as this can be achieved with longer names too.

> - means maintainers might have to occasionally do a little extra
> searching... ONE TIME,
>   until then they put in the dependency lines, and then they'll know
> where to go from then on.

- this search has to be done *by every user* who wants to install the

Best regards

   -- Dago

More information about the maintainers mailing list