1 |
Hi gang. |
2 |
|
3 |
Here go a few more ideas I decided to throw in. |
4 |
I must mention that these are mostly reiterations of some points that were |
5 |
raised at different occasions in previous (and often old; yea, I really am |
6 |
doing too much of "hey this was discussed like a year ago" stuff lately :)) |
7 |
discussions of portage functionality/enhancements. Thus effectively this is |
8 |
going to be more of an overview than a new proposal. I did not seem to see |
9 |
them mentioned yet, but in case some of them are dups I apologise. |
10 |
So, here goes: |
11 |
|
12 |
1. Multilevel categories. For example: |
13 |
dev-* => dev/langs/{procedural/,functional/...} |
14 |
lib/... |
15 |
util/... |
16 |
Support for arbitrary "deepness" is preferable. |
17 |
The tree is getting bigger and bigger and this feature should keep it |
18 |
browsable for some time to come. Addition of similar category browser to |
19 |
http://packages.gentoo.org/ would be nice too. |
20 |
(I couldn't get through to it for some reason now to check if its not there. |
21 |
So if it is I apologise :)). |
22 |
|
23 |
2. Support for duplicate package names under different categories. |
24 |
There was a (mildly) heated discussion some time ago on that one with may be |
25 |
only silghtly more people on the pro side. Having dealt with my portion of |
26 |
dups and having been in situation when already included package with the same |
27 |
name complicates the (naming) issue I arrived to conclusion that it is |
28 |
inevitable. The reality is that we already have couple of such dups and we |
29 |
have to deal with this anyway (btw, even with present portage things seem to |
30 |
work even if in a semisupported fashion). |
31 |
|
32 |
These two "features" are connected, so I'll put here some common technical |
33 |
elaboration. The debate on "dups" one mostly concentrated around flat vs |
34 |
categorised namespace or, on the user level, search vs browse paradigm. |
35 |
Following the "Gentoo is about choice" line of thought I see only one |
36 |
possible decision here, - to provide both features :). The solution may be |
37 |
simple - treat the "category path" as a part of package name. For the search |
38 |
purposes make the search routines a bit more intelligent, making it to accept |
39 |
request for searches in "basename" only or any other part of the |
40 |
categorization. |
41 |
|
42 |
What should happen when the dups are requested or encountered? |
43 |
If during search - report all matches (just as it does it now anyway), |
44 |
if during action request (e.g. emerge or unmerge), stop and ask for |
45 |
clarification. |
46 |
|
47 |
One other argument for abandoning categorization was that it is hard to select |
48 |
"one true" category for a package in many cases as it really might belong to |
49 |
multiple. This immediately suggests the following: |
50 |
|
51 |
3. Add search keywords (or some other tags) to packages. |
52 |
I believe this was considered for the extended metadata format in the future |
53 |
and even mentioned not so long ago (although I don't remember where and when |
54 |
and I don't see relevant GLEP, should I file one?). I am bringing this up |
55 |
largerly to complete "the picture" started in pp 1 and 2. |
56 |
|
57 |
Taken together these three "enhancements" should make it possible to maintain |
58 |
both search and browsing ability for portage database even as it continues to |
59 |
grow. |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
Now last but not least for this email |
63 |
|
64 |
4. Partial portage checkout. |
65 |
This also was already touted. One of the variants was even recently proposed |
66 |
right here, in this list. I am mentioning this mostly to reiterate and remind |
67 |
other possible approaches to this. |
68 |
|
69 |
4.1 "Thematic" checkouts. |
70 |
Goes along the (proposed) work on "partitioning" the tree for particular |
71 |
tasks. The "corporate" theme was mentioned not so long ago (something along |
72 |
these lines had a "server" tag in discussions happened about 6-12 month ago I |
73 |
believe). As long as there is work on supporting a thematic tree "partition" |
74 |
and as long as it is in a reasonablt consistent state it should be possible |
75 |
to provide such thematic checkout functionality |
76 |
|
77 |
4.2 "Stability" checkouts. |
78 |
Similar partitioning, but based aroung the presumed stability of packages. |
79 |
This may follow the present arch/~arch divide or more levels as/if we |
80 |
introduce them. Apparently this should be inclusive, i.e. poeple who want |
81 |
"testing" stuff are goind\g to get "stable" as well. |
82 |
|
83 |
These two seem like a lot of work, but in reality major part of this work is |
84 |
done in package maintainership and other regular activity (that would |
85 |
otherwise happen anyway). portage-ng would basically just need to provide |
86 |
some support functionality for that. |
87 |
|
88 |
On the contrary the next one (the one that was proposed not so long ago) seems |
89 |
to require not as trivial extension to portage, as it would need some |
90 |
nontrivial infrastructure support. |
91 |
|
92 |
4.3 "On demand" checkouts. |
93 |
I cannot find it right now, but I remember this was proposed on this list just |
94 |
a bit over a week ago. Or was it on -dev? Anyway, the idea is to checkout |
95 |
some "base" collection by default and then do checkouts of more stuff as user |
96 |
requestes (may be indirectly as dependencies). |
97 |
|
98 |
Oh, and we might consider getting all three (or more if they are requested) of |
99 |
them, they don't seem to be mutually exclusive :). |
100 |
|
101 |
George |
102 |
|
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |