Top-level package names, UX questions

[Alexander Sack]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo at niemeyer.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>> The question is:
>>
>>  * do I now have to refer to commands in that package as
>> foo.beuno.command, or
>>  * can I just say foo.command (I prefer this)
>>
>> but that means that
>>
>>  * if there is an "official" foo, I must choose between beuno's foo and
>> that one
>>  * because foo.command :)
>>
>> I think the latter choice is reasonable to have to make.
>
>
> Indeed, and it would probably be reasonable to happen as well on any other
> ambiguity besides the official aliases (foo.beuno and foo.sabdfl, say).
>
> This reminds me of Android's intent system, where a given intent is handed
> off automatically if there's only one subscriber to the given intent, but
> every time an application is installed that could also receive the given
> intent, the user again has to choose which application should handle it, and
> whether the choice should be pinned for future cases.
>
> That system is significantly more flexible, though, as the choice is per
> action, rather than per package.
>
>> Ideally, nothing changes at all on disk (except perhaps in a database
>> somewhere).
>
>
> +1

reaching end of thread i am still +1 with gustavo and sabdfl.

talking technical details, in package.yaml we can just have always
'foo' ... and its a pure database thing on disk and in store that
allows you to install specific developer variants and switch lanes,
just like you can switch to sideloaded apps and later to apps by
path... makes it nice and consistent :).

>
>
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>
> --
> snappy-devel mailing list
> snappy-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
>