| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 15:13 Thu 27 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
>> What for? So someone can name their package foo-1? Is that really |
| 5 |
>> such a major gap we're willing to induce breakage? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Will anyone even !@#*ing use a package names foo-1? I've yet to see |
| 8 |
>> an example given, just ignoring of the breakage it will induce. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I tend to agree. What value does this provide? It creates additional |
| 11 |
> work for no proven real-world benefit. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
As I said before, the point is that the PMS isn't consequent, and |
| 14 |
that there is a discrepancy between Portage and the PMS. Portage |
| 15 |
is stricter because it also forbids package names like foo-1a or |
| 16 |
foo-1_alpha that could be confused with a package name followed by |
| 17 |
a version. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
(Something along the lines of "a hyphen followed by a digit must not |
| 20 |
occur anywhere in a package name" would be even simpler. We cannot |
| 21 |
do that because there are packages like font-adobe-100dpi that don't |
| 22 |
conform with it.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives