UNIX admin writes: > > Please don't. It'll break the packaging consistency > > checks. > > BTW, that reminded me: the organization where I work at, the "experts" wanted > to strictly forbid dashes in the package names because their check tools were > broken/incorrectly written and couldn't handle something like SUNWgnome-libs. > What you wrote up there reminded me of that. If the tool(s) are broken, > shouldn't they be fixed, instead of the product being limited because of them?
In general, yes. What matters here, though, is not an abstract sense of perfection but rather clear and consistent practice that helps eliminate silly errors and misunderstandings. Adding complexity -- such as variables -- doesn't always help reduce error rates. I certainly have no problem with fixing the tools if they get in the way. In fact, if someone were to do something obviously very strange in a package (or in any area) rather than fixing the tool, I'd take exception to it. In this case, though, I don't quite see the point. It's not as though the package delivers thousands of objects or that "root" will ever become "mumblefrotz." -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
