| 1 |
On Monday 08 November 2004 05:31, Ed Grimm wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 07 November 2004 22:39, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> If Portage supporting arbitrary-depth category trees, then we could |
| 5 |
> >> organise things a lot easier. But until that happens, devs are |
| 6 |
> >> going to have to accept the need for more directories in |
| 7 |
> >> /usr/portage. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I don't think an arbitrary depths would be so helpful. Most likely |
| 10 |
> > it'd slowdown portage. How about flatten the whole beast!? The |
| 11 |
> > categorization hasn't to be done via directories. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Whyever would flat-tree be better than arbitrary-depth? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> When I started being more dilligent about reading the gentoo mailing |
| 16 |
> lists, I saw a number of threads on the topic of adding sub-categories, |
| 17 |
> and the only consistent reason that was given for not moving forward |
| 18 |
> was, "we need to benchmark that." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As Paul also points out, assumptions about this one-depth scheme run deep into |
| 21 |
our tools. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We have hundreds of hand-written, practically unmaintained scripts lying about |
| 24 |
the system which must be changed to take this into account. Worse, these |
| 25 |
scripts are required for everyday operation of Gentoo, both by developers and |
| 26 |
users. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Many (most?) of these are written in bash, a language with the several |
| 29 |
remarkable features, one of them being that writing recursive functions is a |
| 30 |
pain. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If you wanted to consider rolling out sub-categories, I very much think that |
| 33 |
for practical reasons, each package would need _one_ primary/canonical |
| 34 |
category of depth one. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- Karl T |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives