| 1 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: |
| 2 |
> Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Without actually intending to open a new debate on that issue <cringes>, |
| 4 |
>> I'm actually a fan of NOT obtaining PN and PV from the filename. I've |
| 5 |
>> seen an approach like this used in various systems and I happen to like it: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> In which systems did you see this approach? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
A bunch of proprietary systems that nobody here would have heard of |
| 11 |
(well, most likely). They had nothing to do with package management. |
| 12 |
The systems in question use a distinct field to display record names |
| 13 |
(which is user definable) and use separate fields to capture the content |
| 14 |
of the record. In many cases the contents of some of these separate |
| 15 |
fields end up in the informal record name field, but it is still |
| 16 |
desirable that they be distinct. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sorry if I implied that my example was directly related to gentoo or |
| 19 |
package management. I was extrapolating from a completely different |
| 20 |
field. However, I still think this is worth considering (entirely apart |
| 21 |
from glep55). If I were building a portage system from scratch I'd |
| 22 |
consider doing it this way. With all the history we have currently I'm |
| 23 |
not sure I'd be eager to make this change now (though I guess we |
| 24 |
actually could as part of a new EAPI). |
Archives