| 1 |
On 26 June 2011 23:40, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think we should avoid changing the fundamental design of portage, |
| 4 |
> such as removing categories or allowing tags to be used as |
| 5 |
> dependencies/etc. At least, not right now. If we set up namespaces |
| 6 |
> for tags that might allow for such a thing in the future. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
At this time I vehemently oppose the idea of using tags for dependencies. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If there was even a good reason to do this, I would probably want to |
| 11 |
see the system working really well first. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> The main driver behind tags seems to be searchability, and I think |
| 14 |
> that is something we could easily improve. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
+1 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I don't think we should |
| 19 |
> hold that up over an initiative to completely re-architect Gentoo... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
+1 |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Kent |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 27 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives