On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:58:59PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:17:32PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >> Another question: is Debian policy the right place to make a decisions > >> like this? Ideally these maxima would be set using some cross-distro > >> standard like POSIX or the FHS. Sadly: > > > > I do not think it is the purpose of Debian policy to limit file name and > > path > > length without providing guidance. > > Could you expand on that? What sort of guidance could policy provide?
Guidance about how to fix a package that run afoul of the limit. > I admit that I have much less interest in this now that I understand > current packages are not butting against the practical limits. But I > do think that an easily checkable "packages should not have absurdly > filenames" (in their files list; I do not mean to say anything about > files generated at runtime) could be helpful in communicating > > * what filesystems are usable for installing Debian? > * how many characters of grace area can tools like dpkg-divert feel > free to use? > * when is enough enough and the current pathname scheme actually a > bug that is going to prevent people from being able to install > the package? > > > Most of the time, files path are not chosen by the packager > > This makes concrete, practically motivated advice about limits more > useful, no? Not really; the packager might not be able to change the filename without breaking either FHS compliance, the interface or compatibility with upstream. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
