On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:25 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > A '3' in the filename is ambiguous. An 'fc3' substring in a filename > > is ambiguous, too. Adding ambiguous and non trustworthy vendor > > information in the filename doesn't make it better. '.rf' is as poorly > > chosen as '.fdr' or '.fr'. You expect that users know that .fr does > > not mean "french" and that .rf doesn't mean "redhat fedora". > > Let's not fool each other. 'fc3' is much more specific and useful than > '3' in itself. It's not specific enough. > I wasn't aware there was a disttag in fedora.us. That should have been > your first clue ! Why should I underestimate your overview? > And the absence of 'rf' will never allow people to identify packages based > on the filename, while having the 'rf' repotag inside is useful for those > that understand the concept, but won't harm those that don't. Identifying packages based on the filename is a crude hack. A work-around for lack of more comfortable tools. > common sense. Maybe I understand better how users work as I help a few > computer-illiterate users to work with Fedora and understand them the > concepts. You jump to conclusions inappropriately. > Without a recognisable disttag and repotag it's very hard to let > people understand. Then give them the right tools to easy the pain. Joe User would love to be able to maintain his installed and available packages with a graphical tool. Joe User thinks that system-config-packages sucks. Joe User has picked up really bad rumours about low-level "rpm" and dependency nightmares and wants to avoid it like the plague, so he doesn't care about the default output of "rpm -q". For those who use plain rpm, you don't need to create an alias which includes more details in queries, because these people know how to use query tags. > > Similarly, there are much better ways how to query a package for who > > made it. Vendor and Packager information and signature are > > available. Let's put them to good effect, please. > > Sure, let's use those too. > > But there is a real use to having it in the filename and EVR info, > despite the fact that we're using the release tag for something it wasn't > designed for. There is no use for repo tags in EVR info.