Hi there.
Thanks for the current proposal for scsh packages. I like the way
it works, and that it is easily combined with existing packaging
infrastructures such as that of Debian.
There's only one thing that's bugging me about the proposal, and
that's the requirement for the package names not to include dashes
(but rather underdashes), while the version is seperated by a
dash.
A way to seperate two (or more) parts of a package name is useful.
Many packages already use a dash for this (scsh-yp comes to mind
in this context). Also, a dash seems friendlier to the eye in my
opinion - and the user will mostly see the package name, not the
version.
Of course, the dash to seperate the version from the package name
also has a long history of use, so this decision isn't quite easy.
Other parties have had this problem before, and solved it in
somewhat different ways:
- Debian allows dashes in the package name, and seperates the
version using an underdash. [1]
- RPM uses the second-to-last dash in the name (the last dash
seperates the release number from the version number). [2]
- Scsh now allows underdashes in the package name, and seperates
the version using a dash.
Package name Package name and version
Debian foo-bar foo-bar_1.0
RPM foo-bar foo-bar-1.0-1
scsh foo_bar foo_bar-1.0
Is there a good reason why scsh deviates in this part?
If not, I would propose to change the proposal to be more along
the Debian rules, that is, that the meaning of dash and underdash
be switched in the package name definition of the proposal for
scsh packages.
Thank you for your time,
-- Jorgen
References:
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Package
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
[2] http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-file-format.html
--
((email . "forcer@forcix.cx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
(gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))
|