| 1 |
Alexandre Rostovtsev schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Users know a package's "natural name", not the occasionally cryptic |
| 3 |
> ebuild name, and certainly not the category. If I want to install a game |
| 4 |
> called "Neverwinter Nights", it may not be immediately apparent to me |
| 5 |
> that I should emerge something called "games-rpg/nwn". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Adding the natural name to metadata would allow users to more easily |
| 8 |
> find the packages they need via packages.gentoo.org and tools like eix. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> -Alexandre |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If people have to look into a file to find a name for a package |
| 16 |
different from the package name, they can also directly look into the |
| 17 |
ebuild or, even more simple, just use the search ability of portage or |
| 18 |
other tools, which are able to search the DESCRIPTION. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So if package name really differs from the ebuild name, put it into the |
| 21 |
description and you can find the package with portage or tools like..... |
| 22 |
eix ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you really, for whatever reasons, dont want to place it into |
| 25 |
DESCRIPTION, metadata.xml already has longdescription. If you place the |
| 26 |
full natural name of the package into that field together with an |
| 27 |
extended description, i am pretty sure, that noone will complain. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So from my point of view, i currently dont see any need for a special |
| 30 |
field in metadata.xml to specify the natural name of a package. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives