| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2015, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> 150404 Alex Brandt wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Saturday, April 04, 2015 14:41:37 Philip Webb wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> I read the recent thread re the new app-eselect. |
| 6 |
>>> Doing my weekly system update, |
| 7 |
>>> it strikes me that 'eselect' itself sb there too. |
| 8 |
>>> Time to paint the bikesheds again ... (smile) |
| 9 |
>> I don't disagree but will simply point out that if this becomes |
| 10 |
>> true, we should also move dev-lang/python to dev-python, |
| 11 |
>> dev-lang/ruby to dev-ruby & dev-lang/perl to dev-perl (not |
| 12 |
>> exhaustive). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> No (and to the other objectors' lists): |
| 15 |
> there are many computer languages, but there is only 1 'eselect'. |
| 16 |
> The eselect set-up is unique within Gentoo, |
| 17 |
> which makes it natural to put it all under 1 category. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
eselect is an administration tool, therefore it goes into the |
| 20 |
app-admin category, together with other administration tools. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That the main application goes into a generic category is a pattern |
| 23 |
that we have used for many years. Other examples, apart from |
| 24 |
programming languages, include app-editors/emacs vs app-emacs/*, |
| 25 |
app-editors/vim vs app-vim/*, and app-text/texlive vs dev-texlive/*. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That said, this discussion is rather pointless now. The package move |
| 28 |
was done in the way it was announced [1], and I'm not going to touch |
| 29 |
all packages another time to update their dependency on eselect. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/fff06b1f1b36e96d5e3ba134b2101de5 |
Archives