Jorgen Schaefer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
That's nice to know, thanks.
> 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
> 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. 
> - RPM uses the second-to-last dash in the name (the last dash
> seperates the release number from the version number). 
> - Scsh now allows underdashes in the package name, and seperates
> the version using a dash.
Yes, the current scsh standard also clashes with Fink, I found out
(Fink disallows underdashes completely, but is otherwise very liberal
[too much to be useful in my taste]). I agree something has to be done
> 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?
Not really, it's due to the fact that I didn't look at what others
were doing too closely.
> 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.
That's a possibility, but it would mean that existing package archives
would have to be renamed (i.e. scx-0.2.tar.gz would have to be renamed
scx_0.2.tar.gz). I would prefer to simply allow dashes in package
names, and use the very last dash as a version separator. I could also
deprecate the use of underdashes in package names, to avoid conflict
with Debian and Fink (I don't think any released package has an
underdash in it's name anyway). To summarise, a package name would be
composed of ASCII letters, digits or dashes.
In general, I think we should try to make sure that scsh package names
are acceptable Debian/RPM/Fink/whatever package names, but not
necessarily the other way around. (And we should also make sure that
package names are valid directory names on OSes on which scsh runs).
Would that change be acceptable for you (and for others)? If it is,
I'll incorporate it in the next release, hopefully with an initial
(simple) support for dependencies.