| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:15:59 -0700 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I still don't see why we need to be encoding metadata in filenames. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Correct. GLEP 55 tries to solve a technical implementation issue by |
| 7 |
> exposing meta data in the filename. Extremely bad form/design, IMHO. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
We already expose metadata in the filename. The version's there and the |
| 10 |
name's there. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> All good points. I cannot believe there exists no other way to solve |
| 13 |
> this technical issue other than resorting to such a non-Unix-like |
| 14 |
> idea. Obviously all of the software packages cited above endeavor to |
| 15 |
> avoid such nastiness. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I do not understand why anyone is willing to accept putting version |
| 20 |
> info in the filename/extension. It is inelegant and, frankly, very |
| 21 |
> ugly. I have written more in the past on why I think it is a |
| 22 |
> terrible idea, so I won't repeat it here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
For the same reason they're willing to accept the package name and |
| 25 |
version in the filename. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Suffice to say, if something like GLEP 55 is implemented, I will lose |
| 28 |
> a lot of faith in Gentoo's design, so much so that I will likely join |
| 29 |
> the ranks of those who abandon it, not only as a dev, but also as a |
| 30 |
> user. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
"If you paint the bikeshed, I shall throw my toys out of the pram and |
| 33 |
run off crying.". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Why don't you propose a viable alternative instead of making threats? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives