On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Wulf C. Krueger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, 30. January 2009 21:50:44 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Here's another idea: > > All of that sounds good to me... > >> * Name collisions that aren't caused by any of the above kind of things >> get solved by giving one of the packages a different name. > > ... apart from this part. > > Renaming packages is not really nice. After re-reading all threads about > categories and how to get rid of them, I couldn't find any really good > alternative either, though. > Neither do I have a good idea about this. > I doubt we can avoid this tbh. Name clashes are going to happen and we can't solve all of them in a nice way no matter which solution we choose for that.
We might very well different programs that does more or less the same thing using the same name. In that case categories doesn't really help and other kind of 'namespaces' we can come up with is going to fail in some cases. Ciarans idea should solve most of the name clashes and it probably doesn't get much better than that. > I think we all agree about finally getting rid of categories as we currently > use them, though, and we should really start doing something about them. > Fully agree. And maybe it's time to do something about this instead of keep talking about new ideas that don't completely satisfy us. The current idea is the best so far imo and if we think of something better down the line we can change the layout at that point. For now I've mostly given up on finding the 'perfect' solution but even with a slightly imperfect solution we can do much better than the current category based system. My vote would be for moving on with this idea and seeing how it'll work out in practice. Any (good) reasons we shouldn't go on with this? Best Regards, Bryan Østergaard _______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
