1 |
Maciej Mrozowski posted on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:55:40 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Friday 24 of June 2011 09:55:19 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
>> So tags are in some way related to categories then? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> IMHO the best approach is to forget about categories and: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> - make package names unique identifiers (it's not that hard, renaming |
10 |
> stuff in app-xemacs mostly) - categories would serve no purpose as id |
11 |
> anymore (though may need to be provided as backward compatibility - but |
12 |
> with symlinks to ebuilds/${PN} inside) |
13 |
|
14 |
What a beautiful bikeshed we're debating! =:^p |
15 |
|
16 |
> - move such packages into ${PORTDIR}/ebuilds directory (so that identity |
17 |
> is ensured on filesystem level) - 'ebuilds' name doesn't seem to be |
18 |
> reserved anywhere so good candidate imho. |
19 |
> To those concerned with directory lookup speed (in order to find package |
20 |
> by name) - generated package index file provided in ${PORTDIR} |
21 |
|
22 |
Alternatively, just use first letter subdivisions. Perhaps grouping them |
23 |
as ac, df, etc, or whatever granularity seems appropriate, if desired. |
24 |
That's a common method of eliminating large-dir issues with otherwise |
25 |
flat listings. |
26 |
|
27 |
> - extend their metadata.xml (no ebuild variables please) with tags in |
28 |
> accepted format. We should provide dictionary for available tags - |
29 |
> necessary in order to avoid randomly added system tags - tag could be |
30 |
> extended when needed - similar policy to global USE flags for instance |
31 |
|
32 |
Keep in mind that there has historically been extremely high resistance |
33 |
to "xml-ifying" anything critical to operational package management, by |
34 |
certain highly respected and politically influential gentoo devs. |
35 |
There's a reason metadata.xml contains only "ancillary" data, while the |
36 |
most important operational data (depends, inherits, src_uri, etc) remains |
37 |
as variables within the ebuilds and/or eclasses. |
38 |
|
39 |
I never tracked who was so stridently opposed and it may well be that |
40 |
they've retired now, but there's some people who simply don't consider xml |
41 |
a sufficiently robust solution in terms of parsing dependencies AND easy |
42 |
error-free human parsability. |
43 |
|
44 |
FWIW, I agree that it'd be a step backward in terms of human editability |
45 |
ease and thus I'd find it a sad day were that to happen, but my feelings |
46 |
aren't particularly strong on the issue. |
47 |
|
48 |
But if packages are indeed uniquely and canonically identified by name |
49 |
only and tags are kept as ancillary to the core merge process as |
50 |
metadata.xml is now, there shouldn't be a problem with it. |
51 |
|
52 |
Just a warning that "here be dragons" for anyone thinking about going |
53 |
down that path. Consider reading up in the list archive for past debates |
54 |
on the subject. |
55 |
|
56 |
> - package manager needs to be make aware of tags of course in order to |
57 |
> allow package list (not tree anymore) searching and filtering (virtual |
58 |
> package tree can be generated from tag - by number of tag occurrences in |
59 |
> packages - for instance all packages with tag "kde" could be "shown" |
60 |
> somewhere within "kde" tag subtree etc) |
61 |
|
62 |
As long as it's kept out of critical operational functionality... but |
63 |
this seems to be getting pretty close, if the "package manager needs to |
64 |
be [made] aware of tags". This would have been unlikely to have gotten |
65 |
thru at one point... but as I said, it's possible that opposition isn't |
66 |
any longer a factor. |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
70 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
71 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |