1 |
2011/6/23 Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>: |
2 |
> On 23 June 2011 09:46, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> In order for this metadata to be of any use to a user, it would need |
5 |
> to have some way to facilitate its use, whether it be a fake generated |
6 |
> directory of symlinks, or a dedicated program ( like debians aptitude |
7 |
> ) for exploring this data in a tag-oriented way. |
8 |
|
9 |
The problem is that there's no official GUI for portage, and I don't |
10 |
think we should have that either. Symlinks are clean, and portage has |
11 |
always been file-oriented so I see no problem with using them for |
12 |
this. All we need is to deference the symlink to find the real name of |
13 |
the package and put it in world instead of the symlinked name, so the |
14 |
rest of packages won't even need to be retouched to fix the |
15 |
dependencies. I don't really know if it's that simple as it sounds, |
16 |
but it's an idea. |
17 |
|
18 |
For the user, it will be a convenient way to look into media-tv, and |
19 |
find there all the tv players like kaffeine and mplayer that s/he |
20 |
would not have found otherwise. Even portage managers like portato |
21 |
will list the packages following the directory structure, so I think |
22 |
we should concentrate on that, rather than doing fancy things that |
23 |
won't be useful for a thousand years. Tags might be elegant, but I |
24 |
don't think they are practical for the average Gentoo user, which |
25 |
probably is the kind of user that sets USE="-semantic-desktop" to |
26 |
avoid using the whole kde tagging system. I also don't know if the |
27 |
advantages of tagging are really worth all the pain to implement. And |
28 |
after that, every Gentoo user will have to learn a new way to interact |
29 |
with portage when it comes to searching the package s/he needs. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Jesús Guerrero Botella |