| 1 |
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Einar Karttunen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hello |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I have thought about a new way of categorise ebuilds in gentoo. The |
| 6 |
> new scheme would be based on category files which would be just a |
| 7 |
> list of dependencys as portage understands them. Each package could |
| 8 |
> be in many categories and categories may include categories (but there |
| 9 |
> may be no circular references). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I agree on your point that category files are usefull. You certainly have |
| 13 |
a point. I don't think though the categories in the portage tree should |
| 14 |
vanish. I prefer to see category files as an addition to the "main |
| 15 |
category" of each package. The reason I want that is that I think the |
| 16 |
system would become unmanageable if the packages are uncategorized. There |
| 17 |
are just too many packages, if you want to put them all in one directory, |
| 18 |
it will be hell to find them or maintain them. Next the categorizing |
| 19 |
allows for duplicate names. Finally I think category files with qualified |
| 20 |
packages are not harder to make than category files without qualified |
| 21 |
packages. Unqualifying packages is a considerable job though, so I prefer |
| 22 |
to give each package a "main" category, and use category files for |
| 23 |
aditional categories. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Paul |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
___ |
| 29 |
/~~~\ | Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
| O-O | | Student of information management and technology |
| 31 |
| _ | | Mail: Paul@××××××××.net |
| 32 |
\___/ | Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives