| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:23PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 2 |
> Which is one of the reasons why I am behind the idea of *unique* package |
| 3 |
> names, even if that involves some redundand naming. It's for the greater |
| 4 |
> good. The package name being tied to its category is evil and it also |
| 5 |
> means that we'll never see multiple categories per package, or more |
| 6 |
> descriptive category names, or any other of these goodies. Ever. |
| 7 |
And what about packages that have the same name upstream, and yet do different |
| 8 |
things? It's a nice concept, but not practical. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
find $(<profiles/categories) -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 ! -name CVS -printf '%h %f\n' | sort -k2 | uniq -f1 -dD |
| 11 |
Shows we have 145 packages with non-unique names. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We've even got a few cases where there are 3 applications with the same name |
| 14 |
upstream: |
| 15 |
app-arch/par |
| 16 |
app-text/par |
| 17 |
dev-util/par |
| 18 |
(2 other examples of the same thing as well). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 22 |
E-Mail : robbat2@××××××××××××××.net |
| 23 |
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 |
| 24 |
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 |
| 25 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives