1 |
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 15:13 Thu 27 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
5 |
>>> What for? So someone can name their package foo-1? Is that really |
6 |
>>> such a major gap we're willing to induce breakage? |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Will anyone even !@#*ing use a package names foo-1? I've yet to see |
9 |
>>> an example given, just ignoring of the breakage it will induce. |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> I tend to agree. What value does this provide? It creates additional |
12 |
>> work for no proven real-world benefit. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> As I said before, the point is that the PMS isn't consequent, and |
15 |
> that there is a discrepancy between Portage and the PMS. Portage |
16 |
> is stricter because it also forbids package names like foo-1a or |
17 |
> foo-1_alpha that could be confused with a package name followed by |
18 |
> a version. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> (Something along the lines of "a hyphen followed by a digit must not |
21 |
> occur anywhere in a package name" would be even simpler. We cannot |
22 |
> do that because there are packages like font-adobe-100dpi that don't |
23 |
> conform with it.) |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Ulrich |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
This doesn't seem that difficult. How about "$PN must not end in a |
29 |
hyphen followed by 1 or more digits"? |