KISS in Guidelines/Micro-Optimizations

[Hans de Goede]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 13.03.2008 07:25, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>>> "VS" == Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> writes:
>>> VS> And by the way, in my opinion the discussion should not be only
>>> VS> about Unicode, but about restricting package names even to a
>>> VS> subset of ASCII (let's say eg.  a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, +, _, .).
> 
> FWIW, +1
> 
>>> This is why we need a concrete proposal to vote on.  Things would have
>>> gone much better if we had one.
>> +1
>> One of the problems I have with "ban packages with unicode names" is 
>> that it doesn't consider what to do when a package name upstream is 
>> non-ASCii. 
> 
> Well, I see your point, but on the other hand: do we need to have
> details like those you outline in the guidelines?  There is enough in
> there already and they are hard to read and understand.
> 
> Further: And does the FPC really need and want to solve details like
> this? Trying to sort those out is of course a respectable goal, but it's
> not yet a big problem afaics.
> 
> So maybe it really just as simple as saying "ban packages with unicode
> names". or, to be more precise, make it something like: "Package names
> are limited to 'a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, +, _, .' If you have a package with a
> different problem come to fedora-packaging-list and discuss with us;
> once we solved it in a few packages we can write a page like 'Hints how
> to adjust package names if they contain non-ASCII characters'".
> 
> That's easier for everyone. And then the problem can be solved step by
> step over time by those that are effected together with the FPC members.
> The 'Hints how to adjust...' page for that of course could and should be
> separated from the guidelines and not protected by the ACLs for easy
> maintenance.
> 
> 
> The reason why I write this mail is because I think we over optimize
> things and try to regulate to many details (in Fedora in general, not
> specific to the FPC). That's afaics a lot of work for the committees
> (which we need for more important things), feels like bureaucracy for
> the packagers and slows us down more and more as things get more
> complicated. And even worse, you can think hours how to solve problems
> and all their details, you'll miss one or two special cases often, so a
> "hits page" maintained by those that are effected is IMHO a way better
> place for details than the guidelines.
> 

+1

Regards,

Hans