| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:20:40PM -0400, Wyatt Epp wrote: |
| 2 |
> I bring this up because there are several packages with the same name |
| 3 |
> and different qualification. Obviously, they'll have different tags |
| 4 |
> because they're not the same thing, but neither should they share the |
| 5 |
> same directory. So the simple solution is to just change the package |
| 6 |
> names so we avoid collision and preserve our flat ontology (I've |
| 7 |
> forgotten the objection to doing this; please forgive). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I believe that the objection is that it is better to follow upstreams' |
| 10 |
package names as directly as possible. This would look better and be |
| 11 |
less confusing than having a package named git and git-core, like I've |
| 12 |
seen elsewhere. Having categories would also prevent changing an |
| 13 |
ebuild's name from upstream's name only for the sake of giving it a |
| 14 |
unique name in Gentoo. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think that in most cases, when package name collisions happen, the |
| 17 |
colliding packages differ enough that they'd conceivably be in |
| 18 |
different portage categories, letting them be uniquely identified in |
| 19 |
Gentoo. If someone is planning on writing a new program, he likely |
| 20 |
knows about already-existing alternatives to this package. The author |
| 21 |
of a new sound editing suite would not name his suite `sox' because |
| 22 |
the author cannot help but to know that media-sound/sox exists. But |
| 23 |
someone writing some new sax thing might play off of `sax' and name it |
| 24 |
`sox', though this is hypothetical ;-). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
binki |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Look out for missing or extraneous apostrophes! |
Archives