1 |
On 7/19/06, Kevin F. Quinn <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> In my opinion moving packages from one category to another just causes |
3 |
> unnecessary disruption to the tree - all relevant dependencies |
4 |
> throughout the tree have to be altered, putting current installations |
5 |
> out-of-date with respect to it. |
6 |
|
7 |
Some other folk hold a different opinion. It's both perfectly natural |
8 |
and desirable for packages to migrate out of -misc type categories |
9 |
into more targetted categories over time. We've done it in the past, |
10 |
and it's something we need to be able to continue to do in the future. |
11 |
It helps folks look for things when they don't know the name of what |
12 |
they're looking for, and it stops -misc type categories from becoming |
13 |
dumping grounds. |
14 |
|
15 |
> The key issue is that categories are semantically inadequate. |
16 |
|
17 |
Do you have any evidence to show that this is a widely-held opinion? |
18 |
Have you done any research amongst the wider user community to find |
19 |
out how they view categories? |
20 |
|
21 |
> Deciding |
22 |
> which category a package fits into is subjective, frequently a package |
23 |
> fits into many categories yet the category system insists that a |
24 |
> package belong to one and only one category. |
25 |
|
26 |
All classification systems are subjective, imperfect, and prone to |
27 |
change over time. Portage's is no worse than any other in this |
28 |
respect. |
29 |
|
30 |
(What is worse is the way Portage copes with change ... I agree with |
31 |
Mike here, we should be fixing our tools, rather than being |
32 |
artificially restricted by them). |
33 |
|
34 |
> Usually these big package moves occur when people want to align herds |
35 |
> with categories, which is a waste of time - also it's daft as packages |
36 |
> can sensibly belong to more than one herd. Unfortunately we see a lot |
37 |
> of it in the tree. |
38 |
|
39 |
You think it's daft, but that's just one perspective. |
40 |
|
41 |
What would you prefer? A tree where packages never ever move |
42 |
category? Christ, if we followed that dogma, then categories really |
43 |
would be useless, because we'd have far too many packages filed in the |
44 |
wrong place, or in general catchall -misc type categories. |
45 |
|
46 |
I think it's more important that the tree can be flexible, and can |
47 |
change structure over time. |
48 |
|
49 |
> This week it's packages that have voip functionality that are being |
50 |
> moved to net-voip. In six months time it'll be someone else wanting to |
51 |
> move all packages with IM functionality into net-im. In herd-speak, |
52 |
> these packages could easily belong to both the voip and im herds, |
53 |
> should such exist; those providing c++ libraries could also belong to |
54 |
> the cpp herd. This is useful, as the maintainers of those herds can |
55 |
> each deal with issues in their field. It doesn't matter which category |
56 |
> it's in. |
57 |
|
58 |
It seems a bit odd that a language herd like cpp (using your own |
59 |
example) would maintain a package just because the package itself is |
60 |
written in cpp, irrespective of what the package actually does. For |
61 |
example, the PHP herd is focused on packages that provide the PHP |
62 |
language and it's supporting infrastructure ... not on applications |
63 |
that are written in PHP. Those are left to other herds, who are more |
64 |
expert in the problems that those applications solve. |
65 |
|
66 |
> The only concrete thing categories give us is the ability to have two |
67 |
> packages with the same upstream name without having to mangle the |
68 |
> upstream name. |
69 |
|
70 |
Not true. They provide us with an organisational ability too, whether |
71 |
its grouping packages to ensure people don't dump stuff in the tree |
72 |
(dev-perl being the classic example here), grouping packages by origin |
73 |
(gnome-*) or by common purpose (sys-fs). If a user needs something, |
74 |
but doesn't know which package they want, they can look inside the |
75 |
relevant category, and see what their choices are. |
76 |
|
77 |
In fact, categories do not give us the complete ability to have two |
78 |
packages with the same upstream name in the tree ... because binary |
79 |
packages do not support category names at all. |
80 |
|
81 |
> Unfortunately the category system is deeply embedded in portage and the |
82 |
> tree, so changing that system is simply not going to happen, which is |
83 |
> why I've stopped whinging about the semantic inadequacy of the system. |
84 |
|
85 |
Instead of whinging about why the existing categories are bad, why not |
86 |
instead put forward an alternative (preferably with code, but a clear |
87 |
and consistently argued position would be a start) for something |
88 |
better? Otherwise, you *are* going to be ignored ... and with good |
89 |
reason. |
90 |
|
91 |
Best regards, |
92 |
Stu |
93 |
-- |
94 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |