| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of |
| 4 |
> what PMS authors think) so why change it now? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The best definition I could find for "atom" is in ebuild(5): |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
A depend atom is simply a dependency that is used by portage when |
| 9 |
calculating relationships between packages. Please note that if |
| 10 |
the atom has not already been emerged, then the latest version |
| 11 |
available is matched. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The point is that the syntax to be used in a keyword request is not |
| 14 |
a general package dependency specification (aka "atom"). You neither |
| 15 |
want only CATEGORY/PN there, nor any operators or use dependencies, |
| 16 |
nor do you want to match the latest version available. What you want |
| 17 |
is a list of CATEGORY/PF each specifying exactly one ebuild. Also, |
| 18 |
arch testers keyword ebuilds but not "atoms". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Alternatively, I would propose to call them "bikesheds" as that will |
| 21 |
> work just as well as any other label and will succinctly refer to |
| 22 |
> the creative process that made it a replacement for "atoms". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, I am just suggesting to use a precise term there, because IMHO |
| 25 |
it would help to avoid confusion. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ulrich |
Archives