| 1 |
Tuesday, 3. February 2009, Josh Saddler Ви написали: |
| 2 |
> Maciej Mrozowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I was thinking, maybe it would be possible to drop categories completely |
| 4 |
> > in the future (maybe keeping symlinks for compatibility and to ease |
| 5 |
> > migration) and to put *all* packages in one directory - that would |
| 6 |
> > require making all names unique of course. |
| 7 |
> So, what, we're turning into Debian? Arbitrary package (re)naming? Yuck! |
| 8 |
> Our current policy is to call the package what upstream calls it. We can |
| 9 |
> do this largely *because* of categories. There are a few noncompliant |
| 10 |
> packages, but the system generally works pretty well. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Besides, in my opinion, the ability to see "what's there" in at least |
| 13 |
minimally categorized way without having to resort to using some special |
| 14 |
tools or going to some website is worht something. In this vain I was |
| 15 |
proposing going the opposite direction - to allow arbitrary nesting of |
| 16 |
categories, like going sci-math -> sci/math and deeper (then packages would |
| 17 |
naturally be specified by "FQEN" - fully qualified ebuild names). Its not |
| 18 |
like tree walker would be the most complex part of code in portage.. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
George |
Archives