| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 |
| 2 |
Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > yac <yac@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental |
| 8 |
> >> properties of categories and tags. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that |
| 11 |
> > they didn't originally represent. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No one's redefining anything. You seem awfully fixated on the history |
| 14 |
> that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really matter in this |
| 15 |
> context. Regardless of any of that, people can and _do_ attempt to |
| 16 |
> use categories as a rudimentary method of attempting to search for |
| 17 |
> packages. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"Giving something a unique unambiguous name" is not a historical issue. |
| 20 |
It's something we still need, and a core part of how package manglers |
| 21 |
work. You can't just pretend that categories there for exactly this. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > From a package mangler perspective, |
| 24 |
> > categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're |
| 25 |
> > fundamentally 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 |
Things still need a unique unambiguous name. It's that or GUIDs... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives