| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 05:29, Jean Jordaan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Always when this comes back up I wish portage didn't categorize |
| 3 |
> in terms of an arbitrary fixed tree, but in terms of a flat list |
| 4 |
> (or alphabetical tree) of packages, where each package has one |
| 5 |
> or more keywords. In this case, scheme would have keywords like: |
| 6 |
No. This will completely prohibit browsing the tree (yes, there are some of us |
| 7 |
who actually do this ;)). True, not always you can assign the unique category |
| 8 |
and lately some of them are becoming quite long. However the econd one is |
| 9 |
easily solved by multilevel categories. As for the first one.. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A combined proposal for multilevel categories (like |
| 12 |
dev/lisp/{common,scheme...} might be in this case) and for search keywords |
| 13 |
went in for portage-ng some time ago (gentoo-portage-dev mailing list). There |
| 14 |
is absolutely no reason to limit us to one approach when we can easily have |
| 15 |
both ;). Unfortunately I do not think this will happen before transition to |
| 16 |
portage-ng (read for quite a while). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
George |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives