| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Pawe³ Hajdan, wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 2/11/12 2:00 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Other distros associate a more user-friendly package name |
| 5 |
>> (application name) to packages. |
| 6 |
>> Say, they bind libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in |
| 7 |
>> package metadata. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
[Replying to a random message in this thread.] |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Why do you think that writing the package name in mixed case and with |
| 12 |
embedded white space would be more "user friendly"? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also |
| 15 |
>> support this? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I still don't see what this would buy us. So far we have a unique |
| 18 |
identifier (namely ${CATEGORY}/${PN}) for our packages. Introducing |
| 19 |
another name will water this down and cause confusion for users, in |
| 20 |
the first place. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So, can you point out what are the advantages of your proposal? |
| 23 |
Are they large enough to outweigh the confusion arising? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I'm fine with this, but please make it unobtrusive (i.e. don't |
| 26 |
> require everyone to change their metadata.xml now). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm not convinced that such info should be added to metadata at all. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
Archives