Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: foser <foser@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:14:52
Message-Id: 1118477722.13125.44.camel@rivendell
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering by Mike Frysinger
1 On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > consistency is one advantage (which i'm sure you'll say is pointless)
3
4 I've been the one talking consistency, something you've knowingly broken
5 for a long time here.
6
7 > as for the rest of the ramble you posted here it's really quite wrong ... you
8 > must have missed the class where they teach you the ins & outs of
9 > alphabetical sorting because it really does allow you to quickly scan a list
10 > and figure out if the item you're looking for is there or not
11
12 First of all this is speculative and may not apply to this particular
13 situation to begin with. Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not
14 primarily be dealt as a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence,
15 there is no abc order in sentences. If you have to search, you'll have
16 to scan anyway, exact position is not a guarantee for certainty because
17 not every pack is available on every arch, it's not like you can go
18 without scanning. Last, this only holds to some extent true for people
19 in countries with alphabetic scripts, outside that limited part of the
20 globe people are not as proficient in ordering alphabetically.
21 I think you are just going out of your way to justify something you've
22 done for ages for no other reason than your own preference. But I must
23 grant you, you come with better arguments now than you've ever done in
24 the past concerning this issue. Of course you had a lot of time to think
25 about it.
26
27 > if you ever had to do arch-specific KEYWORDing on a frequent basis (and i'm
28 > 99% sure you have nfc we support other arches than x86 if we use
29 > arch-specific breakage in GNOME depends as any sort of track record),
30
31 If there was ever arch specific breakage -this btw is a baseless claim,
32 so it shouldn't have been put up here, but I guess that's what populism
33 is about-, then it is most likely because someone screwed up the
34 ordering inside one package dir, making it inconsistent and as such a
35 pain to deal with.
36 Now for my list of 3 letter IRC abbreviations to make a point : wtf,
37 wth, imo, lol, nfw, fyi, otw. Keep it clean.
38
39 > you'd
40 > know that scattered KEYWORDS is a pita to deal with ... i've seen cases where
41 > a specific arch was duplicated in KEYWORDS; once near the beginning and once
42 > near the end ... normally it wasnt anything bad, but there was a case where
43 > one KEYWORD was stable while the other was unstable
44
45 Again something I'd only expect to happen in cases where someone is
46 reordering keywords at will inside a package.
47
48 A certain amount of uncertainty in order actually might prove to be
49 effective in having everyone who deals with keywords actually really
50 check all keywords and not depend on assumptions, which both 'error'
51 cases you mention seem to be caused by.
52
53 Anyway, my feud is with the inconsistency within packages and how it got
54 introduced, not with whatever order is preferred by some. Now tell me
55 how this happened again?
56
57 - foser

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Bryan Oestergaard <kloeri@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>