| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 |
| 4 |
> yac <yac@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties |
| 6 |
>> of categories and tags. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that they |
| 9 |
> didn't originally represent. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
No one's redefining anything. You seem awfully fixated on the history |
| 12 |
that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really matter in this |
| 13 |
context. Regardless of any of that, people can and _do_ attempt to |
| 14 |
use categories as a rudimentary method of attempting to search for |
| 15 |
packages. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As you and several others have so eloquently pointed out, that's not |
| 18 |
their "purpose". Concurrently, from the other direction, myself and |
| 19 |
several others have noted that they're thoroughly inadequate for that |
| 20 |
anyway. That's why this topic keeps coming up and why this |
| 21 |
(work-in-progress) GLEP exists in the first place. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> From a package mangler perspective, |
| 24 |
> categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're fundamentally |
| 25 |
> part of a package's name. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
From that standpoint, they're even less adequate for lookup; encoding |
| 28 |
metadata in names has never turned out well for anyone. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
Wyatt |
Archives