On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:28:00AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 20/07/11 01:15, Magnus Therning wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Vic Demuzere wrote: > >>On 19 July 2011 16:18, Magnus Therning<magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>I think that the guest/host terminology is rather well established, so > >>>maybe > >>> > >>>virtualbox-host-additions > >>>virtualbox-guest-additions > >>>virtualbox-guest-modules > >>> > >> > >>I don't like this. It sounds as if the first package has additions for > >>the host, but it's just an iso containing additions for the guest. It > >>doesn't make sense to name it this way. > >> > >>What about > >> > >>virtualbox-additions > >>virtualbox-arch-additions > >>virtualbox-arch-modules > > > >I see your point, but I don't like your suggestion since there is no > >indication *where* it makes sense to install the packages. It's worth > >making it crystal clear that guest additions and guest modules only > >make sense in a guest, and that it's pointless to install the ISO > >packages in one. > > > > Is this clearer? > > virtualbox-additions-for-installing-into-an-arch-linux-host > virtualbox-additions-for-installing-into-an-arch-linux-guest > > or should the information really go into the pkgdesc... Why not take it a step further then? Just name the packages 3b4385462ed5af582deacfeb2d636b5b 66622c4cecd8eddadd397c2d0a44f92b 9514fd263021fd250fa735f54096d315 Useless, and user-unfriendly, but then the information should really go into pkgdesc... No, all pointless attempts at satire aside. It's *easy* to make these package names descriptive and it's *useful* to make it crystal clear where each package belongs in a Virtualbox system. So why not do that then? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx jabber: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus Perl is another example of filling a tiny, short-term need, and then being a real problem in the longer term. -- Alan Kay
Attachment:
pgpLgKyHqMcFZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
