1 |
Hey Dave. |
2 |
|
3 |
I feel your pain ;), I was the one responsible for the package, so I think I |
4 |
need to do some discussion/explanation here. |
5 |
While I myself sympathise to the more structured approach and would wellcome |
6 |
distinguishing packages by categories, the sad truth is that portage does not |
7 |
seem to be very consistent even with itself, as Fred Van Andel pointed out. |
8 |
|
9 |
Now, not so sad truth :) |
10 |
I just wanted to point out, that originallly portage was category-sensitive, |
11 |
and you *had* to specify categiry while emerging the package. The change was |
12 |
made quite consciousnessly, as this feature (of being able to drop category) |
13 |
was quite requested one (if memory serves me well). Heck, I even catch myself |
14 |
now and then enjoing not to have to type too much :). |
15 |
Of course the change has implications, that certain category treatment is not |
16 |
followed, which can lead to the problems, some of which (albeit minor at this |
17 |
point) were emphasized. |
18 |
As for the existance of two ocaml's: the thing is that this did not become a |
19 |
strict policy, while it probably should have, and the developer in question |
20 |
might not have known about it. |
21 |
|
22 |
Thus I would like to use your request as a bait for other developers and users |
23 |
to discuss the issue and decide whether we should "officialize" this policy |
24 |
(of not having equivalently named ebuilds under different categories) or |
25 |
should we do something else. However IMHO leaving this as "unofficial" policy |
26 |
may hart in the long run... |
27 |
|
28 |
George |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 17:03, Dave Nellans wrote: |
32 |
> Is that true? |
33 |
> |
34 |
> my very scientific test of doing emerge -p ocaml on several machines |
35 |
> returns that dev-lang/ocaml would be installed on every one. this would |
36 |
> seem there is at least "some" mechanism defining which one is returned, |
37 |
> even if its as silly as being alphebetical by by category name or ?? |
38 |
> |
39 |
> thanks for the link to the ebuild naming policy chris. it doesn't |
40 |
> address this issue though of multiple ebuilds having the same name if |
41 |
> they are in different categories. anyone have thoughts on how this |
42 |
> should be done from a technical or user standpoint? i think from a user |
43 |
> standpoint it makes more sense to allow multiple ebuilds with the same |
44 |
> name because then a user searching for them will have both returned |
45 |
> (even if they have to user the category/ebuild to get that particular |
46 |
> one to install) |
47 |
> |
48 |
> dave |
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |