| 1 |
On Monday 08 November 2004 05:31, Ed Grimm wrote: |
| 2 |
> Whyever would flat-tree be better than arbitrary-depth? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
This was a bit theoretical to set a counterpoint to the arbitrary depths idea. |
| 5 |
I neither put a thought on the implications regarding different fs or cvs. |
| 6 |
One benefit would be, that it would force us to have unique package names; |
| 7 |
Something like the output of `emerge texinfo` wouldn't happen. Also the |
| 8 |
metadata wouldn't need to go away. Just the representation via directories. |
| 9 |
If this would be done via keywords (not the arch ones), then everyone could |
| 10 |
use (either cli or more powerful graphical) tools to represent sets of |
| 11 |
packages in many ways. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The real reason for the anserer is that I don't think, that it will be easier |
| 14 |
to find packages, by hiding them in fourth or fifths level subdirectories. |
| 15 |
Especially, if the depths can differ. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Carsten |
Archives