[arch-general] virtualbox additions package naming

[Magnus Therning]

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 at 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 at therning.org   jabber: magnus at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20110719/0a0aa557/attachment-0001.asc>