| 1 |
foser wrote: [Fri Jun 10 2005, 10:55:17AM EDT] |
| 2 |
> As the threadstarter indicated, this was done without discussing it |
| 3 |
> and in the knowledge that there was no agreement on this issue. As |
| 4 |
> said before, the fact that something gets done some way, doesn't |
| 5 |
> mean it's right to do it that way. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Not to dilute your point, which is well taken, but I'm curious how |
| 8 |
much discretion the tool author has to make decisions independently? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> See earlier replies : unneeded arbitrarily introduced inconsistency. I |
| 11 |
> don't know why people are defending that move, even vapier indicates |
| 12 |
> that there really is no reason to do it alphabetically, except maybe |
| 13 |
> that he now knows to look in the keywords string, which is of course a |
| 14 |
> bit far fetched with all arch keywords not being set for all different |
| 15 |
> packs (so he still has to look at different points in different packs) |
| 16 |
> and was not brought up as a defence of his particular move at the time |
| 17 |
> he started doing this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If all the keywords in the tree were alphabetical, would that have any |
| 20 |
impact on the compressibility of the tree? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Oh no doubt, I'm concerned about the inconsistency mostly. The |
| 23 |
> maintainers arch is a concept that I do not necessarily associate |
| 24 |
> with the keywords ordering anymore (although it may have been |
| 25 |
> a reasonable indicator in the past), it actually really makes this |
| 26 |
> discussion fuzzier than it has to be. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse the issue by bringing that up. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> My point is more about how this got 'introduced' as a mindset and |
| 31 |
> that such unguided behaviour gets reinforced by this discussion, now |
| 32 |
> up to IUSE ordering changes and next we'll tackle inheritance order. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Agreed, it was a bad decision on my part to make the change without |
| 35 |
discussing on this ML. That's something I will try to not repeat in |
| 36 |
the future. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or |
| 39 |
detract from, I hope) this discussion... |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
grep -hr --include=\*.ebuild '^KEYWORDS=' /usr/portage | perl -ne ' |
| 42 |
s/[^[:lower:]\s]//; @F = split; @S = sort @F; $sorted++ if "@F" eq "@S"; |
| 43 |
END { printf "%d%% of ebuilds are sorted (%d/%d)\n", 100*$sorted/$., $sorted, $. }' |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
49% of ebuilds are sorted (9435/19174) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Regards, |
| 48 |
Aron |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Aron Griffis |
| 52 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives