tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>>> Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
>>>> Why isn't one enough?
>
>>> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name and version
>>> strings. This was judged to be a less annoying solution. See
>>> yesterday's discussion.
>
>> I'm not convinced. There was nothing in that discussion why any
>> particular character would have to be allowed in a version number.
>
> Well, there's already a counterexample in the current contrib stuff:
> uuid-ossp. We could rename that to uuid_ossp of course, but it's
> not clear to me that there's consensus for forbidding dashes here.
I suspect that "_" might be troublesome.
Let me observe on Debian policy... It requires that package names
consist as follows:
Package names (both source and binary, see Package, Section 5.6.7) must consist only of lower case letters (a-z),
digits(0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start
withan alphanumeric character.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Source
I suspect that we'll need to have a policy analagous to that.
Also worth observing: Debian package files are of the form: "${package}_${version}-${dversion}_${arch}.deb"
where package and version have fairly obvious interpretation, and... - dversion indicates a sequence handled by Debian
-arch indicates CPU architecture (i386, amd64, ...)
Probably the dversion/arch bits aren't of interest to us, but the
remainder of the notation used by Debian seems not inapplicable for us.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/languages.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer - 4. "You cannot really appreciate
Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon."