[Mageia-dev] Changing default media names

[nicolas vigier]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote:

> Op zondag 20 november 2011 22:36:06 schreef nicolas vigier:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about it. I see the benefits, but to me there is a major
> > > drawback: they are not user-friendly :
> > > - current names are readable, new ones aren't, they're just technical
> > 
> > Adding capitals and replacing / with spaces does not make the name more
> > user-friendly. If we want to be friendly with users, we should not
> > confuse them by calling the same thing with different names all the time.
> > The naming scheme for medias that is used almost everywhere including
> > on mirrors is i586/core/release, not Core 32bit Release.
> > 
> > > - current naming scheme doesn't bother you with arch information, except
> > > on 64 bits system and only for 32 bits media
> > 
> > That's the problem. Sometimes the arch is included, sometimes it is not.
> > And sometimes two names can refer to different things (Core Release is
> > not the same thing on x86_64 and i586 installs), or two different names
> > can refer to the same thing (Core Release on i586 is the same as Core
> > 32bit Release on x86_64 installs).
> > 
> > And 32bit is not more user-friendly than i586. Sources is not more
> > user-friendly than SRPMS. We should call the same thing with the same
> > name all the time.
> [...]
> 
> I disagree with you here, I'm all for consistent media names that are easy to 
> complete, but "Core Release Source" is more userfriendly than 
> "SRPMS/core/release" . i'm pretty sure my dad would get even more lost than he 
> is right now.

For someone who doesn't know anything about our media policy, both names
are equaly meaningless. If we want them to understand something, what is
needed is a description text of the medias.

> 
> imho "Cauldron Core Release (source)" is more userfriendly than 
> "cauldron/SRPM/core/release". at least to people who don't even know what a 
> path is.
> 
> it's acceptable for me to:
>  - no caps
>  - better ordering
>  - consistent arch adding
> 
> but using pathnames, albeit the best consistency, is not good.

Why ?

> 
> imho we should be able in cli to use a unique identifier, but it doesn't have 
> to be the name as seen.
> 
> if we can use urpm* commands with the path name as identifier, that's ok for me 
> too.

Having multiple unique identifiers for each media is not what I would
call user-friendly. We already have the name as unique identifier, there
is no need to add an other one.