1 |
On 02/06/2003 at 12:05:24(-0400), Todd Berman used 1.4Kbytes just to say: |
2 |
> > I would separate namespace and categories: let portage work with a |
3 |
> > *flat* namespace that does not depend on categorization. A package may |
4 |
> > well fit in more than one category, as you say. |
5 |
> As far as I know, portage does work on a flat namespace, well, relatively flat at least :) |
6 |
> > I find categorization too arbitrary to include in a robust tool like |
7 |
> > portage. So, give the users a 'category view' on top a flat namespace, |
8 |
> > but use these categories only for information. In fact, categories can |
9 |
> > be made of only a hierarchy of symlinks to the main directory: |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > ¢Ä Too much files in the main directory then ? That's is a different |
12 |
> > problem. But not one that justifies, on its own, the use of categories. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Rolf |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > (My first post here: hi all) |
17 |
> |
18 |
> wrt to the rest of that, I am actually in favor of MORE categorization. |
19 |
> I think instead of having dev-this, dev-that, etc, it should be dev/this |
20 |
> and dev/that. |
21 |
|
22 |
Greatness! |
23 |
|
24 |
It was about time we got to that conclusion. A tree-like category view is what |
25 |
portage needs. I add my vote in support for that. It seems lots of packages |
26 |
would have to be renamed though - app-emacs/vm -> vm-emacs, app-xemacs/ispell |
27 |
-> ispell-xemacs etc. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\ |
31 |
/ Georgi Georgiev (-< / Given its constituency, the only \ |
32 |
\ chutz@×××××××.net /\ .o)\ thing I expect to be "open" / |
33 |
/ +81(90)6266-1163 V_/_ |(/)/ about [the Open Software \ |
34 |
\ ^^^^^^^^^\ Foundation] is its mouth. -- / |
35 |
\ / John Gilmore \ |
36 |
\_________________________/\__________________________________/ |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |