| 1 |
> I would separate namespace and categories: let portage work with a |
| 2 |
> *flat* namespace that does not depend on categorization. A package may |
| 3 |
> well fit in more than one category, as you say. |
| 4 |
As far as I know, portage does work on a flat namespace, well, relatively flat at least :) |
| 5 |
> I find categorization too arbitrary to include in a robust tool like |
| 6 |
> portage. So, give the users a 'category view' on top a flat namespace, |
| 7 |
> but use these categories only for information. In fact, categories can |
| 8 |
> be made of only a hierarchy of symlinks to the main directory: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> ¿ Too much files in the main directory then ? That's is a different |
| 11 |
> problem. But not one that justifies, on its own, the use of categories. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Rolf |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (My first post here: hi all) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
wrt to the rest of that, I am actually in favor of MORE categorization. |
| 18 |
I think instead of having dev-this, dev-that, etc, it should be dev/this |
| 19 |
and dev/that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
--Todd |
Archives