On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> this reminds me.. why do we continue to have these? it seems crazy
> given the hisorically limited length of svr4 package names, and when
> not all packages have them.

There's a default rule of trunctanion I believe, and SVR4_PKGNAME is an
override in cases where this doesn't work.

> pkgsrc is pkgsrc is pkgsrc. any tool which builds svr4 packages from
> pkgsrc packages should just DTRT with PKGNAME, imho. can't we just
> drop SVR4_PKGNAME entirely?

Feel free to make the rules smarter, to lessen the need for SVR4_PKGNAME.
If you can ensure that there are no naming conflicts, I see no reason to
keep SVR4_PKGNAME.

Also note that the 9 character restriction on SVR4 package names is being
lifted, although I guess we still want to support Solaris 6/7/8/9 for a
long time to come.

-- 
Gillette - the best a man can forget