Top-level package names, UX questions

Gustavo Niemeyer gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com
Mon Mar 16 19:46:49 UTC 2015


Some of the good sides I pointed out about having an alias that is just a
reference will die if you internalize the alias into the package itself,
because suddenly you can have multiple packages claiming to be responsible
for a given alias in your system, and I can't imagine anything good coming
out of this.

Instead, a clean notion of alias would imply having a system that works
entirely independently of such external convenience names, so the package
system has fully defined references, but for the user's typing/thinking
benefit, it can shorten some names after a centrally controlled database
which can change over time.


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Martin Albisetti <
martin.albisetti at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer
> <gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why would the manifest carry the approved alias?  This sounds like
> > out-of-band information.
>
> Agreed it's out-of-band information
> I think mvo's argument is so you could rely just on the packages to
> reproduce a working system. Otherwise you would need to copy over the
> installed packages + extra metadata obtained from the store on
> download/install.
> I don't think I have a strong opinion either way, though.
>
>
> --
> Martin
>



-- 
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20150316/ab593d6a/attachment.html>


More information about the snappy-devel mailing list