| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 02/13/2012 12:42 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 5 |
> Alexandre Rostovtsev schrieb: |
| 6 |
>> Users know a package's "natural name", not the occasionally |
| 7 |
>> cryptic ebuild name, and certainly not the category. If I want to |
| 8 |
>> install a game called "Neverwinter Nights", it may not be |
| 9 |
>> immediately apparent to me that I should emerge something called |
| 10 |
>> "games-rpg/nwn". |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Adding the natural name to metadata would allow users to more |
| 13 |
>> easily find the packages they need via packages.gentoo.org and |
| 14 |
>> tools like eix. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> -Alexandre |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If people have to look into a file to find a name for a package |
| 22 |
> different from the package name, they can also directly look into |
| 23 |
> the ebuild or, even more simple, just use the search ability of |
| 24 |
> portage or other tools, which are able to search the DESCRIPTION. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> So if package name really differs from the ebuild name, put it into |
| 27 |
> the description and you can find the package with portage or tools |
| 28 |
> like..... eix ;-) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> If you really, for whatever reasons, dont want to place it into |
| 31 |
> DESCRIPTION, metadata.xml already has longdescription. If you place |
| 32 |
> the full natural name of the package into that field together with |
| 33 |
> an extended description, i am pretty sure, that noone will |
| 34 |
> complain. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> So from my point of view, i currently dont see any need for a |
| 37 |
> special field in metadata.xml to specify the natural name of a |
| 38 |
> package. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
This field wont be useful to users but to GUI applications that want |
| 41 |
to show a pretty name instead of a weird PN. It would be fully |
| 42 |
optional but it would have a standard syntax. You can't use |
| 43 |
<longdesription> for that to extract the real package name because |
| 44 |
each developer use this tag in a different way. Same for description. |
| 45 |
The proposed tag would have a single strict syntax, that is a single |
| 46 |
string just for the real package name so it would be easily |
| 47 |
extractable. And of course it would be fully optional. After all, it |
| 48 |
is just an addition in metadata.dtd |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
- -- |
| 51 |
Regards, |
| 52 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
| 53 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 54 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPOMtJAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCykQP/35WxHYWrJx1p5EiJtqG+VGg |
| 57 |
/MfUq/5s25lOSW8RjR51HexHh/rkKXEmBA5lhzDVdO9G+tg+yveHoRBYVwy+zbz7 |
| 58 |
GXyHqb967n2TiR2AIq9zEVPR/9hmoo8mInItevW6UNiy/rIPs+Y1+KImm45R8ujK |
| 59 |
ja10r+SDB9Xr629MYsiCwJbbjEDTwmcH82ivctFqJAL6bBUYDYuOGAmphbO2VBmU |
| 60 |
J1Y1U1SAxugL1H/x/hpUFlX1e7lzbi7BWa7J5FIzSPtXjNwsj3Wgk9GK9/ENV96W |
| 61 |
ktWapjnpJkRv6zR+nRoaKE8Nn2OwBVRHdGk1Yw8WPpVAKxwySQh+xboqhMExzudj |
| 62 |
4Ll7Rdlg7wAAT/nnWuQdDtDhr1++GKQyYRWw23rO+8Jf6LFUd3TWPoUuN1lyDp/t |
| 63 |
XFKdqGL71Rlhi9zaZRyWA34cgDYNV1bZH/jhlnv3mm9rj7hWr21XXLkMvP4BuAt7 |
| 64 |
jwkI6twuB4PP11NMCjx0teE5AgDdNlofrxBO/F3j+ZZ3u/U56h+VdKLPArk2UNyl |
| 65 |
lcgqSAkylDlKAP0UGclDYpK5/gOwm/4L2fYCVjGYt8ZIR7BOTvhnuRdbYsW5awjE |
| 66 |
YZVa14WvyJ7W6SxfFXB9XkAGt+KWj5pX6p8ZNjhW2DMEIfwDUe5xsEoL6X+C4RH4 |
| 67 |
ds5JsoHi8tGCYm0KqpKc |
| 68 |
=QGwW |
| 69 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives