From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc02k-00017N-3T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:22:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4153E0432; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.146]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E5BE043A for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 9so995320qwj.10 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=uKGDhd2PpNfmkD7w/WtfqtaEVnU7PwzTUjRWWAMVLQI=; b=TysGHmt+k8WOUc2c/P3Kwcxn2fVazX5H+Vfx+123zwpNDNVzSjis/lPWx6nSaOscZH x3IQwc2ASOHhDrrK+liJ2iRIVbcByL7cCcCCyq2uQ/O98ohrk8iWEJBfEiM3g/Z9PB3x 9mTki2Yrtc9e1C3UfbzAQ8nJGiIBofQ1ywmJo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=VdPxP2/pth4g7Q+rDzQI+KQOkiK2qxwOC1jespwUQ4mEUwB00GQcmfyn9LWa+VzG/q lvXECFCmcMFrLVtAa4ZR6imNkmtgpUvfHHqLe0X279XJTQPZLNoQWXD2NItPD/IjNbGI gU1/hQFuvtfKC0vYmlcLxVH9JwVhnvVKIxeD4= Received: by 10.224.37.139 with SMTP id x11mr8322408qad.146.1235492496735; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 39sm9226121ugb.13.2009.02.24.08.21.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:28 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224162128.02c69851@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/IHO9CVG.LfknfeQVJEhtLA0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 551d911c-a15a-4267-a5bb-54662f9633a9 X-Archives-Hash: b60747521c9af11abfcfb484a43f771b --Sig_/IHO9CVG.LfknfeQVJEhtLA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:15:59 -0700 Joe Peterson wrote: > Richard Freeman wrote: > > I still don't see why we need to be encoding metadata in filenames. >=20 > Correct. GLEP 55 tries to solve a technical implementation issue by > exposing meta data in the filename. Extremely bad form/design, IMHO. We already expose metadata in the filename. The version's there and the name's there. > All good points. I cannot believe there exists no other way to solve > this technical issue other than resorting to such a non-Unix-like > idea. Obviously all of the software packages cited above endeavor to > avoid such nastiness. Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? > I do not understand why anyone is willing to accept putting version > info in the filename/extension. It is inelegant and, frankly, very > ugly. I have written more in the past on why I think it is a > terrible idea, so I won't repeat it here. For the same reason they're willing to accept the package name and version in the filename. > Suffice to say, if something like GLEP 55 is implemented, I will lose > a lot of faith in Gentoo's design, so much so that I will likely join > the ranks of those who abandon it, not only as a dev, but also as a > user. "If you paint the bikeshed, I shall throw my toys out of the pram and run off crying.". Why don't you propose a viable alternative instead of making threats? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/IHO9CVG.LfknfeQVJEhtLA0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkHosACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGAsQCfaiavk/y0d/g6uDvE2EJONOPk clkAnA9nwhbGhUvW88/OB4vneUgi1QoJ =c43d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/IHO9CVG.LfknfeQVJEhtLA0--