| 1 |
George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok, this seems to be pretty much it, at least from what I remember |
| 3 |
> being mentioned on this topic. Again, if anybody thinks I ommitted |
| 4 |
> something, please stand up and mention it :). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Namespace orthogonal to categories. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Categories change, as packages are being added; if a category has more |
| 9 |
that N (lets say 50, for example) entries it looses its usefullness. |
| 10 |
While browsing for packages it is natural to have some level of depth; |
| 11 |
two or tree levels of categories should be ok. Also a package can fit |
| 12 |
into more that one category. Let categories be a graph. A symlink |
| 13 |
hierarchy, for example. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But since categories are variable and somewhat arbitrary, don't let |
| 16 |
the basic system, the core algorithms, depend on them. So take a flat |
| 17 |
namespace for packages, resolving name conficts in the download (url |
| 18 |
to local dir) phase, adding the necesary information to the ebuild. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Concluding, have a flat namespace for machine interaction, and an |
| 21 |
arbitrarily complicated category graph on top of that for user |
| 22 |
interaction. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, it's an opinion. |
| 25 |
Rolf. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives