| 1 |
Hey Dave. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I feel your pain ;), I was the one responsible for the package, so I think I |
| 4 |
need to do some discussion/explanation here. |
| 5 |
While I myself sympathise to the more structured approach and would wellcome |
| 6 |
distinguishing packages by categories, the sad truth is that portage does not |
| 7 |
seem to be very consistent even with itself, as Fred Van Andel pointed out. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Now, not so sad truth :) |
| 10 |
I just wanted to point out, that originallly portage was category-sensitive, |
| 11 |
and you *had* to specify categiry while emerging the package. The change was |
| 12 |
made quite consciousnessly, as this feature (of being able to drop category) |
| 13 |
was quite requested one (if memory serves me well). Heck, I even catch myself |
| 14 |
now and then enjoing not to have to type too much :). |
| 15 |
Of course the change has implications, that certain category treatment is not |
| 16 |
followed, which can lead to the problems, some of which (albeit minor at this |
| 17 |
point) were emphasized. |
| 18 |
As for the existance of two ocaml's: the thing is that this did not become a |
| 19 |
strict policy, while it probably should have, and the developer in question |
| 20 |
might not have known about it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thus I would like to use your request as a bait for other developers and users |
| 23 |
to discuss the issue and decide whether we should "officialize" this policy |
| 24 |
(of not having equivalently named ebuilds under different categories) or |
| 25 |
should we do something else. However IMHO leaving this as "unofficial" policy |
| 26 |
may hart in the long run... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
George |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 17:03, Dave Nellans wrote: |
| 32 |
> Is that true? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> my very scientific test of doing emerge -p ocaml on several machines |
| 35 |
> returns that dev-lang/ocaml would be installed on every one. this would |
| 36 |
> seem there is at least "some" mechanism defining which one is returned, |
| 37 |
> even if its as silly as being alphebetical by by category name or ?? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> thanks for the link to the ebuild naming policy chris. it doesn't |
| 40 |
> address this issue though of multiple ebuilds having the same name if |
| 41 |
> they are in different categories. anyone have thoughts on how this |
| 42 |
> should be done from a technical or user standpoint? i think from a user |
| 43 |
> standpoint it makes more sense to allow multiple ebuilds with the same |
| 44 |
> name because then a user searching for them will have both returned |
| 45 |
> (even if they have to user the category/ebuild to get that particular |
| 46 |
> one to install) |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> dave |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives