Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:01:17PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>
>>maillog: 11/05/2005-03:40:04(-0500): Brian Harring types
>>
>>>>On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>>>>Here's my suggestion, for what it's worth :)
>>>>
>>>>The layout on disk and the semantics of categories do not need to be related.
>>>
>>>Yes and no.  You're assuming that people don't use the layout on disk for digging
>>>around without calling portage.  Personally, I do.
   Not need to be related, but shouldn't be related.  In essence this
allows people to put the tree where-ever, as long as that storage
mechanism supports the database operations required ( stuffing
everything in a SQL db fex ).  I don't know why someone would....but hey ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>>I like the idea of using the first character of a package name as the
>>>>sub-directory name.  This can be extended more deeply as and when necessary to
>>>>avoid over-large directories which cause problems on some filesystems.  e.g.
>>>>for sudo you get "s/sudo" and vim-sudo "v/vim-sudo".  This is
>>>>architecture-neutral, rsyncable, scalable, and not too difficult for users to
>>>>parse manually (see later for searching through categories).  If the algorithm
>>>>portage would use to locate a package is such that it doesn't mandate the depth
>>>>(i.e. tries "package", "p/package" if "p/" exists, "p/a/package" if "p/a/"
>>>>exists) then overlays can have a different depth to the rsync tree; if you only
>>>>have a few packages in overlay then they need not be in subdirectories at all.
>>>
>>>Re-asserting that the fs layout *does* matter, how is that more intuitive when trying
>>>to track down the ebuild for dev-util/diffball ?
>>
>>
>>The fact that the directory where diffball is is easily deducable by its
>>name. As it is, I'd be a bit lost if I had to guess whether diffball is
>>in app-arch or dev-util. Even if I remembered it was something
>>dev-related I'd still be inclined to look in sys-devel.
>
> dev-util is accurate (it's a compressor, but a specialized variant,
> same as patch is).  From it's current fs location/layout, we get thus-
> quick lookup on the atom, and inference of it's intentions.  This is
> why we have xml at the category level, for example.
>
> One thing that's being unstated also- it's implicitly stated that this
> directory structure is somehow easier to look up a package.  If you
> know the _exact_ package name, maybe.  Otherwise, you're falling back
> to a search tool (which defeats to some degree the whole arguement for
> flattened namespace).
> Some quicky python, grouping by first char of the package name, and
> you wind up with (top 8)-
> 421, 521, 571, 582, 657, 663, 664, 746
 Assuming the directories are ordered by letter, ( a,b,c,d ) and
subdirectories if present as well, a bsearch wouldn't be bad.  Both are
ordered sets and you can quickly determine the location of a package in
log(n) time.  I don't see a big deal here.
> Seperate directories within an individual directory.  Say 'd' for
> example, and we'll pretend 746 is the count of packages that start
> with 'd'.  That's a butload of directories to go digging in.
>
> The response would be, "well then extend it to the first two chars
> after the first dir".  You narrow it down, but add another layer of
> dirs, again, for what gain?
>
> See, the thing I find odd about this thread/request is that
> essentially breaking it down to first letter groupping, is being
> argued as being _easier_ for people, while allowing multi cats, or
> just flat out dropping the category aspect.  The example above, imo,
> proves otherwise.
>
> Keep in mind at this point, the discussion is whats easiest for
> _humans_.  What's easiest for code/comp is another matter, and (within
> limits) can work with anything that's thrown at it.
>
>
>>>How many directories deep would I have to go before I reached the
>>>ebuild?
>>
>>Does it matter? You know the path exactly. It's p/portage. It's
>>not ... "was it sys-apps/portage or app-portage/portage"?
>
> I know the path as sys-apps/portage already though.  Doesn't that
> count for something? :)
>
> Or, a bit more likely case, I know the type of the package, the
> category, but don't recall it's exact name.  What y'all are proposing
> forces the user to use a tool, rather then just a quicky ls.

  *tongue in cheek* and what is ls but another tool for listing the
contents of a directory :)

>>>>Having said that, some things could be done now.  If a flat package namespace
>>>>is desirable, the existing package name clashes could be resolved by renaming
>>>>the few packages that clash.
>>>
>>>74 packages, roughly, out of 9429 roughly.
>>
>>76/9295, which is not that bad, considering about half of them are
>>emacs/xemacs related.
>
> 'cept either you, or someone else was proposing a totally flat
> namespace, no cats in the atoms.  That means the count of changes (the
> 76 above is just # of conflicting packages) is around 19000, plus a
> fairly large amount of portage modifications.
>
>
>>>> Category could be added as a field in
>>>>metadata.xml, so that a package could "belong" to multiple categories.
>>>> The query/search tools could be enhanced to scan this metadata (perhaps including
>>>>the current category directory as an implied entry in the metadata.xml).
>>>
>>>If that's the goal of the "belong to N categories" thread, strictly searching,
>>>sure, although I don't like it.  It can't become an atom for *DEPEND due to the cpv
>>>nonconflicting bit.
>>
>>I personally want to see the category part *disappear* from the *DEPEND
>>which is one of the reasons to advocate a flat tree. If the category (or
>>part of it) goes in the package name, so be it, but at least there will
>>be no package moves to break older ebuilds or outdated overlays.
>
> Frankly, you need to give a *really* damn good reason for why this is
> better.  I don't think it is, convince me otherwise.
>
> What do we gain from a flat namespace?
> Right now, I can infer an atom out of a DEPEND string's purpose to
> some degree, based upon it's category.  To head off the "well you
> don't need to know the category, you should know the packages
> intentions if you're modifying the ebuild", that dodges the point; via
> the category portion of an atom, I can infer at least -intention- of a
> package.

The CPV thing.....is a big fix :(

> Ignoring changes required (have stated them already, no point in
> sniping ya over it), what _exactly_ do we gain from the change?
> ~brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=SN4n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list