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@therning.org> 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@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org 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