On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy >> >that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit >> >then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy. >> >> So what's a reasonable name length limit then? 80? 150? 2000? > >Do you want it to actually work worth a damn (i.e. not croak on ext2-4, xfs >and btrfs at the very least)? > >Don't let it go over 250 *bytes* (not characters. UTF-8 and all that...). > >We really need to curb the long name insanity in the head. And might as >well do it in a way that does not hinder our hability to get data where it >is needed, i.e. keep it under 100 chars.
I'm pushing for a little less than that, then the Joliet problems go away. We get an absolute maximum of 103 (Unicode) chars there, so I'm going to push for a max of 90 for normal uploads. That allows for small amounts of growth for security updates etc. >There really is no excuse for such long deb names. If a naming convention >"requires" it, fix the buggy naming convention. Agreed 100%. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110331124823.gc18...@einval.com
