1 |
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:02:35 -0600 |
2 |
Joseph Hardin <jhlazer@×××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Why do this at a filesystem level? I may be missing the point, but why |
5 |
> not just incorporate this into a seperate tool and keep a file to |
6 |
> store all the comments and data. |
7 |
|
8 |
Because: |
9 |
|
10 |
a. it should be faster (at least judging from my admittedly limited |
11 |
experience with this matter) |
12 |
b. you wouldn't have to build a new tool, filesystems |
13 |
capable of handling these kind of attributes have them already |
14 |
c. live queries are pretty nifty and maybe much harder to |
15 |
incorporate with files (in a live query you show all files having |
16 |
a specific atrribute set, when a new file with this attribute is created |
17 |
it immediately shows up in this selection). If you find a BeOS zealot |
18 |
I'm sure he can explain all this much better to you, because |
19 |
that's one of the things quite a lot of people seemed to like about |
20 |
BeFS. |
21 |
d. all this benefits without having to force a database as a dependancy |
22 |
on Gentoo users. |
23 |
|
24 |
Also note that I didn't propose or request this, I was just interested |
25 |
in some feedback and discussion if/why this is a good/bad approach in |
26 |
handling this category issue (and others, like if the name of a package |
27 |
changes you maybe could keep the old name as an attributes). I just |
28 |
think that Portage is hell of a package managment system and think |
29 |
discussion about how to further improve it (even my suggestion |
30 |
may not even be an improvement, but let the people who know |
31 |
Portage much better than I do clarify this) couldn't hurt. |
32 |
|
33 |
Michael |
34 |
|
35 |
P.S. I'm CC'ing this to the list, I hope it's ok for you, but I don't |
36 |
want to answer a similar question again. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
www.cargal.org |
40 |
GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3 |
41 |
Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org |
42 |
Registered Linux User #278726 |