Re: Proposal: Merge Package Name Parts (Sec. 5.6.1 and 5.6.7)
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 03:12:54PM -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> >From reading sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.7, the package name
> conventions/restrictions are the exact same.
> "Package names must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits
> (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at
> least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric
> character." (5.6.7)
> and
> "Package names must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits
> (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at
> least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric
> character." (5.6.1)
> So this means they would be a good candidate to merge together, or for
> one to reference the other. For example if Section 5.6.7 would say:
> "Please see Section 5.6.1 for the naming conventions, binary package
> names follow the same restrictions as their source counterparts"
> It also means that programs working with those fields can reasonably
> expect that the syntax accepted by one field (the Source field) will
> not ever be out of sync from the other (the Package field). And it
> also means that one won't inadvertently update one while forgetting
> about the other.
> As this is a minor change I don't think that it needs seconds, once
> someone picks it up and pushes it to the master.
Note that this duplication is a recent change that was *introduced* in the
latest version of Policy, so I don't think "doesn't need seconds" is as
self-evidently correct as you suggest.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: