| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 11/02/12 08:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0100 Fabio Erculiani |
| 6 |
> <lxnay@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> I think this is not the first time it's been discussed here, but |
| 9 |
>> maybe I'm wrong. Other distros associate a more user-friendly |
| 10 |
>> package name (application name) to packages. Say, they bind |
| 11 |
>> libreoffice-writer to "LibreOffice Writer" in package metadata. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> How about expanding metadata.xml (adding to its .dtd) to also |
| 14 |
>> support this? It would be nice to show this info in GUI package |
| 15 |
>> managers instead of the actual, and ugly (for the newbies), CP or |
| 16 |
>> CPV. It would be just a small addition that would make a big |
| 17 |
>> diff. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I think we already expand the name in DESCRIPTION whenever it is |
| 20 |
> ambiguous. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Could you please mention some Gentoo examples which would benefit |
| 23 |
> from the proposed change? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't think it's about being unambiguous, I think it's about |
| 27 |
providing a common language title for the package. I could see this |
| 28 |
as being something desirable for a portage gui or to add more |
| 29 |
descriptive results to a search engine. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That said, I expect there would need to be a near-portage-wide |
| 32 |
adoption of the new entry for this to be useful in either case, and I |
| 33 |
don't see that happening... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk83AYQACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2RAgD/b1DCfb9KgiL0KrukK0GDBXYh |
| 39 |
r9ldAD4DWD2yKy9nFhwBAK2NYfF9c1kvkiw63WgCvR2ICGs+vaodNwHesNXHkpiw |
| 40 |
=v02O |
| 41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives