On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Vic Demuzere wrote:

On 19 July 2011 16:18, Magnus Therning 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. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves. -- Alan Kay

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 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

On 07/19/2011 09:12 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 19 July 2011 22:12, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

I've been criticized a lot because I choose poorly the name for guest additions.

Right now the packages are like this:

virtualbox-addtitions - contains the iso with guest additions for linux/windows/etc and is installed on host virtualbox-guest-additions - contains guest additions only for an arch linux system as guest. virtualbo-guest-modules - modules only for an arch linux system as guest.

Now that virtualbox 4.1 is released I need help choosing this names.

From:

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012747.html

I proposed (descriptions are case-sensitive):

virtualbox-additions -> virtualbox-guest-additions (consistent with upstream and history) desc: "The VirtualBox Guest Additions ISO/CD image"

virtualbox-guest-additions -> virtualbox-additions-linux ('guest' not important; shall be implied by description) desc: "Additions for Linux guests (userspace tools)"

virtualbox-guest-modules -> virtualbox-modules-linux (as above) desc: "Additions for Linux guests (kernel modules)"

I still stand by that scheme, except:

The 'additions' and 'linux' may swap places, and 'linux' may be substituted for 'archlinux'. As for why I think it is not utterly important to have 'arch' anywhere:

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012751.html

So, an alternative (revised) proposal:

virtualbox-additions -> virtualbox-guest-additions desc: "The official all-in-one VirtualBox Guest Additions ISO/CD image"

virtualbox-guest-additions -> virtualbox-archlinux-additions desc: "Additions only for Arch Linux guests (userspace tools)"

I'm concern about this replace and I don't know if pacman can handle this well enough. Does pacman accept a versioned replace to not conflict with the newly virtual-guest-additions? replaces=(virtualbox-guest-additions<4.1) ? I don't want to hit this case: virtualbox-additions replaced by virtual-guest-addtions 4.1.0 virtualbox-guest-addtions 4.0.12 replaced by virtualbox-archlinux-addtions 4.1.0 virtualbox-guest-additions 4.1.0 replaced by virtualbox-archlinux-addtions 4.1.0

virtualbox-guest-modules -> virtualbox-archlinux-modules desc: "Additions only for Arch Linux guests (kernel modules)"

-- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10

-- Ionuț

On 20 July 2011 02:21, Ionut Biru wrote:

I'm concern about this replace and I don't know if pacman can handle this well enough. Does pacman accept a versioned replace to not conflict with the newly virtual-guest-additions?

replaces=(virtualbox-guest-additions<4.1) ?

I don't want to hit this case:

virtualbox-additions replaced by virtual-guest-addtions 4.1.0 virtualbox-guest-addtions 4.0.12 replaced by virtualbox-archlinux-addtions 4.1.0 virtualbox-guest-additions 4.1.0 replaced by virtualbox-archlinux-addtions 4.1.0

I remember now. You expressed this once in IRC. You will have to work around this or post an announcement to warn. I believe this is the same situation as with Python 2.x and 3.x modules. There is no versioned replaces in pacman yet [1]. If it all seems a bit too much work (it does actually after I look at it again), then I suppose simply getting rid of the 'guest' would do. In that case, it warrants a different scheme: virtualbox-additions virtualbox-(arch)linux-additions || virtualbox-additions-(arch)linux virtualbox-(arch)linux-modules || virtualbox-additions-(arch)linux So, you don't rename the main guest additions package. With the appropriate/relevant descriptions, IMO, this is the next best KISS. Also, I don't think it's the main package that's the source of the confusion/criticism, but the linux-specific ones. In this case we would be renaming only the linux-specific packages, so the ultimate purpose would be served. [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23410 -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10

Am Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:02:14 +0800 schrieb Ray Rashif :

If it all seems a bit too much work (it does actually after I look at it again), then I suppose simply getting rid of the 'guest' would do. In that case, it warrants a different scheme:

virtualbox-additions virtualbox-(arch)linux-additions || virtualbox-additions-(arch)linux virtualbox-(arch)linux-modules || virtualbox-additions-(arch)linux

This is one of the most ambiguous issues, particularly for users who are new to virtualization in general and virtualbox in particular. What are virtualbox-additions? Are they optional additions which bring more functionality to virtualbox? Instead they are meant for the guests. So this should be made clear in the package name. And as far as I know it's a policy that package names shall follow upstream's names. And upstream's name is Virtualbox Guest Additions. So this package should definitely be renamed to virtualbox-guest-additions. Heiko

Am Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:16:44 +0300 schrieb Ionut Biru :

sure, we wanted this name as well but pacman doesn't support versioned replaces. Have you followed my discussion with Ray? If not, then your message is useless.

I have followed it. But I also told you that it's not a problem in my opinion if people have to do some manual work for upgrading it once. Just post an announcement about the changes to the News section of the website, the mailing lists and/or the wiki. This is only necessary once. Nevertheless, do you really need versioned replaces? I mean Arch Linux is a rolling release distro which contains only one version (the latest) of each package in the repos. So you can assume that people always use the most up-to-date versions. Heiko

Am Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:48:34 +0800 schrieb Ray Rashif :

Why? Because, 'virtualbox-additions' would be just as confusing as 'virtualbox-guest-additions' to a newcomer.

Not quite. When I was a newcomer to virtualbox I first read something about it incl. on upstream's website. There I found the Virtualbox Guest Additions - it was only an iso and nothing else - and found out what they are for. When searching the Arch Linux repos I found virtualbox-additions and virtualbox-guest-additions and I was really confused when virtualbox-guest-additions didn't do what I expected it to do (downloading and storing this iso). And then I asked myself: What is that and what is virtualbox-additions about which I never read anything particularly not on upstream's website? So I think a correct naming scheme is pretty important particularly for newcomers.

To an existing user, a name change may look good, but would introduce a one-time annoying breakage. We cannot justify the extra work and that breakage in order to introduce this name change, since it won't be a problem to maintain the current name (which isn't "wrong") in the first place, while there are no other packages or conditions _requiring_ us to name the package as such.

What breakage? People just have to run once: # pacman -R virtualbox-addtitions # pacman -S virtualbox-guest-additions The same for the other Arch specific guest additions. I think entering those two commands is worth the effort. Do one hard break once and everything is clear. Btw., at least yaourt and I think also pacman itself will inform the user after a system upgrade that the package virtualbox-additions is not in the repos anymore. And an announcement before doing these changes will do the rest. Maybe such an announcement could be added to post_install of virtualbox which is necessary and will be upgraded as usual anyway. If you then add replaces=('virtualbox-additions') to virtualbox-guest-additions everthing is perfect. I don't see a problem.

I don't think you understood this. Versioned replaces will solve replacements (see ML discussion linked in BR).

What is BR? I guess I understood this. I think this is a non-existing issue here, because I'm pretty sure that you won't need a versioned replaces and see above. Heiko

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

virtualbox-additions -> virtualbox-guest-additions desc: "The official all-in-one VirtualBox Guest Additions ISO/CD image"

You should not put the pkg name in the desc. Either just use "Official ISO/CD image" as desc or use a pkgname which is not paraphrasing the desc. -- Cédric Girard