| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 16:23, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I too feel that tags should be distinct from sets, for a bunch of reasons. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the |
| 6 |
>> repository. While I'm fine with having tags in the repository also, |
| 7 |
>> there is talk about giving users ways of supplying them as well. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> Too late; /etc/portage/sets/ |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That wasn't what I was thinking of. Package masking is also something |
| 12 |
we carefully control in the repository but users can override it FOR |
| 13 |
THEIR OWN SYSTEMS. With tags I think that there were concepts |
| 14 |
floating around of letting anybody influence how packages are tagged. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
With some of the offline suggestions there is really nothing stopping |
| 17 |
anybody from making their own tagging solution outside of the |
| 18 |
repository. I could set up my own packages.g.o site and implement |
| 19 |
user-supplied tagging if I wanted to. That might not be a bad way to |
| 20 |
get this started, as somebody else in one of these threads seemed to |
| 21 |
be implying. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives