1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 |
2 |
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=set? |
7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 |
8 |
> |
9 |
> It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format |
10 |
> every time it's bought up? |
11 |
|
12 |
The problems with PROPERTIES=set remain exactly the same as they were |
13 |
when it was first proposed. |
14 |
|
15 |
> I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain. |
16 |
> Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least |
17 |
> two tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain |
18 |
> that. |
19 |
|
20 |
Uh, I don't see how that's in any way difficult to maintain. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Tag is a property or attribute of package |
23 |
|
24 |
That one's highly debatable. |
25 |
|
26 |
> PROPERTIES=set have the same advantages - they can also be pulled |
27 |
> within dependency tree by other packages. |
28 |
|
29 |
Yes, but PROPERTIES=set has all of the problems it had when it was |
30 |
first proposed, and is the wrong way to implement sets. |
31 |
|
32 |
> > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, |
33 |
> > wikis and web 2.0. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Using already proven technologies and tools is barely disadvantage. I |
36 |
> think last thing we need is yet another obscure format nothing widely |
37 |
> usable understands. |
38 |
|
39 |
Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for |
40 |
decades then. |
41 |
|
42 |
> Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not |
43 |
> mix unrelated things. |
44 |
|
45 |
Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already |
46 |
established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are anyway. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Ciaran McCreesh |