| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 23:58 +0100, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> On May 11, 2005, at 8:10 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > * Unique ID strings for packages, zynot style. Messy as hell though, |
| 5 |
> > DEPEND="foo/bar {12379812AD7382164BD87678652438FC65E43A2}" doesn't have |
| 6 |
> > the same kind of ring to it... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Maybe I'm just a messy person, but I really like this. |
| 9 |
So does Microsoft. The registry has many entries where 128bit (?) |
| 10 |
object-IDs are used. Very interesting to debug. |
| 11 |
> It prevents upstream naming collisions |
| 12 |
But reduces readability for humans to zero. We don't want that. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> & opens multiple categories per package |
| 15 |
> completely. Mr Harring will hate it, |
| 16 |
At least you haven't tried to optimize it all by using XML ... |
| 17 |
> but the rest of us will use |
| 18 |
> `esearch -o "%p\n" "" | grep -e category -e keyword`. |
| 19 |
*head explodes* |
| 20 |
No. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As much as I like the idea of a "better" portage, a binary obfuscation |
| 23 |
won't help. It might make portage more resilient to one kind of problem, |
| 24 |
but forget debugging then. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Patrick |
Archives