Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field <remote-id type="debian"> to metadata.xml
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 08:20:05
Message-Id: 20170603201932.6381c8ba@katipo2.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field to metadata.xml by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200
2 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted
5 > those remotes to the source package used to build them all.
6
7 I think in the event they're a form of conventional
8
9 foo
10 foo-dev
11 foo-dbg
12
13 etc, under the knowledge that those things can't possibly map to other
14 gentoo packages, we should codify only the first of those, and then have
15 it placed on the iteroperating code to make logical inferences from
16 that.
17
18 "foo-dev" in a search query would map to "foo" if no "foo-dev" existed.
19
20 But yeah, lots of complexity there.
21
22 That's why I'd just say those facets shouldn't really be mapped
23 explicitly.
24
25 The general pattern being:
26
27 "If a debian id can be conjugated from another debian id by guessing
28 with a generic algorithm, only index the former"

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field <remote-id type="debian"> to metadata.xml Andrey Utkin <andrey_utkin@××××××××.com>