1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way |
7 |
>>I ever seen. |
8 |
>>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, |
9 |
>>pam_smb in net-misc and so on. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with |
12 |
>>implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>>Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I |
15 |
>>think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such |
16 |
>>a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, |
17 |
>>obv.).. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>>Comments? |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> |
23 |
>Diego: |
24 |
>This is not directed at you solely but expresses my general feelings on |
25 |
>the topic of ever moving packages. |
26 |
> |
27 |
>I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of |
28 |
>time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody. |
29 |
>Invalidates binary package trees. It places stress on rsync servers. It |
30 |
>makes people have to rewrite rsync_exclude files. Makes it harder for |
31 |
>scripts that interact with portage. And in the end really gains us next |
32 |
>to nothing. Please stop moving stuff around for cosmetic reasons. I see |
33 |
>far to many threads about changing stuff. No real valuable work ever |
34 |
>gets done. Stuff simply just gets shifted around somebody can think of a |
35 |
>new way to categorize existing data. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
> |
39 |
I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place |
40 |
within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user. |
41 |
To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a |
42 |
dev-scheme directory. |
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |