On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 17:27:39 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Also there are no technical requirement for packages filenames in ISO >> images to be canonical packages names. Packages filename can be mangled >> to fit the medium, there is a program 'dpkg-name' to recover the >> canonical packages name. > >Exactly, we could also add a new option to dpkg-name to select which >naming layout to use, for example: > > --layout=(default|msdos|iso9960|joliet|sha1sum|...) > >or something along these lines. Currently dpkg-split already has a >--msdos option to generate a 8.3 filename for the split files, which >could be deprecated in favour of dpkg-name instead. > >> This requires the same mangling to be applied >> to the filenames in the Packages files, but this not an issue since the >> Packages file is in the same medium. > >Well, this has already been solved long time ago, although the >restrictions were different then, the dselect methods have supported >the MSDOS-Filename field as a fallback to the Filename one. So the >Packages file is usable not only for CDs/DVDs. > >The problem is that it seems that most (at least apt, cupt and smart) of >the other front-ends do not support such field, so support would need >to be added first. At that point the field could be named more >appropriately I guess. I'm adding this to the things to discuss with >dpkg front-end developer.
Please, let's not go this way. We're not talking about needing incredibly limited filename lengths like 8.3 for FAT here. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews -- 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/20110511160010.gz32...@einval.com
