| 1 |
2011/6/24 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On 06/22/2011 11:15 PM, Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Symlinks are clean, and portage has |
| 4 |
>> always been file-oriented so I see no problem with using them for |
| 5 |
>> this. All we need is to deference the symlink to find the real name of |
| 6 |
>> the package and put it in world instead of the symlinked name, so the |
| 7 |
>> rest of packages won't even need to be retouched to fix the |
| 8 |
>> dependencies. I don't really know if it's that simple as it sounds, |
| 9 |
>> but it's an idea. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> For some reason, using symlinks to represent tags seems like an odd |
| 12 |
> approach to me. I think it would be much more sensible to put them in |
| 13 |
> metadata.xml or an ebuild variable. If for some reason you want symlinks |
| 14 |
> representing the tags (I don't know why you would), you can always use a |
| 15 |
> script to generate symlinks from metadata.xml files. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You might not like it, but Gentoo categories have always been |
| 18 |
directories, not words into metadata.xml. Most portage tools rely on |
| 19 |
that. Not a strong argument, I know that. But someone used this |
| 20 |
argument when someone else wanted to put portage into a database |
| 21 |
instead of an fs-based tree. That was long ago, admittedly, don't know |
| 22 |
if that conversation ever came up again. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I've personally never bothered to learn how to use external tools |
| 25 |
anyway, so I just navigate the tree using command line tools when I |
| 26 |
need to know something about a given package. I am sure I am not alone |
| 27 |
in that regard. I guess I could also "nano metadata.xml", ugh! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Some portage GUIs also use this categorization scheme, like portato or |
| 30 |
porthole (not that they are important at all, but they illustrate the |
| 31 |
trend). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Maybe it's just my mind model is archaic, but I can't really agree |
| 34 |
with tagging for massive trees. I wouldn't drop all my 40 thousand |
| 35 |
songs into a single folder and rely on tagging to keep them at hand. |
| 36 |
Portage has way more files so I don't see how tagging would be better |
| 37 |
for it than it would be for my music collection. I might be too much |
| 38 |
influenced by *nix (and DOS) OSes at this stage to be able to see the |
| 39 |
advantages of tagging (besides the decorative function), I admit. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Jesús Guerrero Botella |
Archives