[Mageia-dev] Changing default media names

[nicolas vigier]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote:

> Op zondag 20 november 2011 23:48:26 schreef nicolas vigier:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> [..]
> > > 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.
> 
> no need to assume & judge me, i know pretty well that the name i supplied is 
> not a name we have.

I'm not judging anyone. Just saying that "Core Release Source" is as
meaningless as "SRPMS/core/release" for someone who doesn't know media
policy.

> 
> > > 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 ?
> 
> it's imho and because of the reason and example above.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> noone said anything about "multitple unique identifiers". be that as it may, 
> from a user pov: if we have name + unique_id and GUI shows name, or we have 
> name + description and GUI shows description is more or less the same if 1st 
> name is similar to 2nd description.
> 
> in short, if rpmdrake shows a short description instead of where name is now 
> and name is mentioned of lesser importance, i'm ok with this.
> 
> that would indeed make urpmi commands use path and rpmdrake still show 
> (descriptive name/description)
> 
> if that's what you mean, maybe you should've been more clear on this. then i'm 
> sure even Stormi agrees...

I don't understand what you're talking about ...