| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:30 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: |
| 2 |
> Personally I think unless there is a real problem that needs to be |
| 3 |
> resolved, moving packages around should be avoided. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It's a shame we can't find a way to turn package categories into solely |
| 6 |
a presentational feature, rather than being an integral part of the |
| 7 |
package's identity as it is today. (And, at the same time, multi-depth |
| 8 |
categories would also be nice :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
With the way things are today, "improvements" to the structure of the |
| 11 |
package tree are held back by our historical legacy. As the tree grows, |
| 12 |
it makes sense to move packages into new groups that weren't viable |
| 13 |
before - and to clear out historical dumping grounds in the process. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If package categories were only something that users used to find things |
| 16 |
- and weren't used by Portage as part of a package's unique identity - |
| 17 |
then we could afford to be more flexible on this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Best regards, |
| 20 |
Stu |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 23 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 24 |
http://blog.stuartherbert.com/ |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 27 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 28 |
-- |
Archives