On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:18:12PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: >On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> > We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so >> > on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for >> > a common use case. Do we really care about supporting *very* long >> > names here? >> 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. > >Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I >wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the names here on two fronts: libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl_0.5.orig-CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2-3.tar.gz 1. Why the "bundle" ? 2. Why such a silly long name? What will happen if somebody comes along with another perl module to add to this bundle, but with a name twice as long? Does the source name for this tarball have to contain the whole of the bundle name? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110330105622.gh7...@einval.com
