Top-level package names, UX questions

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

Why would the manifest carry the approved alias?  This sounds like
out-of-band information.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Martin Albisetti <
martin.albisetti at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer
> <gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
> > I would again suggest just an alias: apache resolves to apache.guy, or to
> > apache.tribe, or to apache.canonical (ignoring the syntax, which I'd
> still
> > prefer to change).
> >
> > If the best option changes over time, the alias simply points to
> something
> > else. There's no convoluted scheme to migrate from one option to the
> next,
> > and no intrinsic conflicts.
> >
> > Am I missing something with that proposal?
>
> I don't think you are, it is in essence what I proposed as well.
> The package continues to have it's name, and the alias is provided
> separately and accessible both in searches and in the command line.
> The manifest carries both, the unique name and approved alias.
>
>
> --
> Martin
>



-- 
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20150316/462f7d44/attachment.html>