Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
>> double-dash method?
> It just looks a bit silly and error prone. And other packaging systems
> have been doing without it for decades.
I can't claim close familiarity with Debian's conventions in this
matter, but I do know about RPM's, and I'm uneager to duplicate that
silliness. Magic conversion of dots to underscores (sometimes),
complete inability to determine which part of the package filename is
which without external knowledge, etc.
Aside from the double-dash method, we kicked around using colons and
pluses as separators (and then forbidding just those characters in
extension and version names). Any of those would be workable, but it's
not clear to me that any of them have any particular cosmetic advantage
over any others. In any case, the time to be voting on them is past so
far as I'm concerned. The work is already done and I'm uneager to do it
over on one person's say-so.
regards, tom lane
