[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) said: > From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and > > try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current > > package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off > > backwards compatability issues in the interest of implementor convenience. > > What programs are we talking about being compatible with? Not dselect or > dpkg, which don't care about the filename. I'd hazard that dchanges would > be easy to fix. Dftp would ask for the feature, as would the dselect > FTP method.
Yes, dchanges should be easy to change if naming conventions change. > Am I missing something? I didn't have specific programs in mind, actually. I was thinking in the general sense. In a slightly specific sense, a change in package naming conventions which is not backwards compatable with current naming conventions might have substantial impact on any 2nd-generation mirrors (and those 1st-generation mirrors which don't make special arrangements to mitigate the impact) and/or might impact anyone who has implemented package-naming sensitive local scripts for whatever local-concern reason, working from our published packaging guidelines and/or from inspection of our package naming patterns.
