| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:47 AM, George Shapovalov <george@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Besides, in my opinion, the ability to see "what's there" in at least |
| 3 |
> minimally categorized way without having to resort to using some special |
| 4 |
> tools or going to some website is worht something. In this vain I was |
| 5 |
> proposing going the opposite direction - to allow arbitrary nesting of |
| 6 |
> categories, like going sci-math -> sci/math and deeper (then packages would |
| 7 |
> naturally be specified by "FQEN" - fully qualified ebuild names). Its not |
| 8 |
> like tree walker would be the most complex part of code in portage.. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Actually we'd want both tags and nesting. They don't address the same issue. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Arbitrary nesting of categories allows better management and storing |
| 13 |
of ebuilds. It could also allow a meta-ebuild to depend on a whole |
| 14 |
subcategory to ease maintenance of said meta-ebuild. It's more a |
| 15 |
developer's feature. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Tags allow ebuilds to appear as being pertinent to more |
| 18 |
(sub-)categories than just the one they're stored into. It may help |
| 19 |
some of us locate packages they need in a better and/or faster way. |
| 20 |
It's more of a user's feature. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Denis. |
Archives