On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Raphael, your argument is very convincing and I am now even more in favour of > Ian's proposal, thanks! Can you list some of those other use cases you said > you > can imagine? Maybe that helps to better decide upon the following:
I gave two already. I don't have any other in mind right now. > [...] qualifier and is also a bit shorter (but also more irregular). > Incidentally, the second option was also chosen by Raphael for his > "if-installed" example above, so maybe the second option is the more intuitive > one? I find it more intuitive, yes. > Since this topic is much about being future proof, I also thought about the > choice of the ":" (colon) character to separate the scope from the value in > each label like: "<scope>:<value>". If the colon is used for this purpose, > then > it will be hard to depend upon a binary package that was built with a certain > build profile. Currently, the way to depend upon a binary package of a certain > architecture is by using "<packagename>:<architecture>". Using this syntax, > the > natural way of depending on a binary package that was built with a certain > profile would be "<packagename>:<profile:stage1>" but there is the problem > with > those multiple colons. So maybe another character should be used to separate > scopes from values? Like the dot: "<scope>.<value>". Is this a valid concern? Or maybe you can use <packagename>:profile=<profilename>. The colon seems like a natural prefix/field separator. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130426150350.ga4...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
