| 1 |
David Klaftenegger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree |
| 5 |
>>where each package can go in multiple categories? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to |
| 9 |
> start at.. |
| 10 |
> I guess my approach isn't a way to go, but I can't find the reason for |
| 11 |
> it being bad, so: |
| 12 |
> Why not just create a symlink to the package in the category it *also* |
| 13 |
> should be in? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> For example, net-mail/mutt could be a symlink to ../mail-client/mutt, |
| 16 |
> allowing to find it in both categories. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Ok, portage would have to do extra work, as it would have to check |
| 19 |
> wether a package is a symlink or not, ignore "symlink-packages" when it |
| 20 |
> comes to ambiguous naming, count them as already installed if the |
| 21 |
> package it points to is already installed and so on... |
| 22 |
> quite some work, but from my point of view less than some other solutions. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> So I hope you understand what I mean, you may now hang me for this |
| 25 |
> proposal, but if you do please tell me why it is not a good way to allow |
| 26 |
> multiple categories per package ;-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
CVS doesn't support symlinks. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Marius |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives