| 1 |
Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Matthew Kennedy wrote:[Wed May 28 2003, 05:04:34PM EDT] |
| 4 |
>> But wait! Thats what categories are for -- ie. defining some |
| 5 |
>> namespace. Thus there's no need, and this more or less backs up my |
| 6 |
>> argument that the category name + package name forms a "fully resolved |
| 7 |
>> and unique" symbol for emerge to act upon. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Actually, that's a misconception of the purpose of categories in |
| 10 |
> portage. It's never been to provide namespaces; that is a side-effect. |
| 11 |
> Categories make it easier for users to find what packages are available |
| 12 |
> for a given type of task. That's their purpose. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Aron, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This is true. However I seriously doubt the use-case where a user |
| 17 |
goes into /usr/portage/* and browses for packages that way. I've |
| 18 |
never done that for the time I've been a developer and also the time |
| 19 |
before that when I was a user. Of course this doesn't mean other |
| 20 |
don't... I'd be surprised though. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think it most people will more likely use the emerge search option |
| 23 |
to find what they need. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That aside, using the category name to resolve ambiguous short-form |
| 26 |
package names seems to work perfectly *today*, and perhaps we should |
| 27 |
adopt its use officially in the documentation as it is a solution to |
| 28 |
cases where we have ambiguous short-form package names. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As far as I can tell, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
emerge app-editors/emacs |
| 33 |
emerge app-editors/emacs-21.3-r1 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
do the same thing as |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
emerge emacs |
| 38 |
emerge emacs-21.3-r1 |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I think we've uncovered two angels to this thread: 1. how to resolve |
| 42 |
an ambiguous short-form package names (I propose the above usage of |
| 43 |
category names 'cause it works great already) and 2. what to do when |
| 44 |
the user does try to emerge an ambiguously named short-form package |
| 45 |
name. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
In the second case you could have: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
1. emerge the first foo portage finds (undesirable, but what happens |
| 50 |
currently) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
2. prompt interactively (this would be the first time portage |
| 53 |
prompts for user interaction afaik) |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
3. fail with an error message indication a long-form etc. must be |
| 56 |
given to resolve one or more packages. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I don't really care either way between 2 and 3. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Matt |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Matthew Kennedy |
| 64 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives