On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 23:58 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> On May 11, 2005, at 8:10 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > * Unique ID strings for packages, zynot style. Messy as hell though,
> > DEPEND="foo/bar {12379812AD7382164BD87678652438FC65E43A2}" doesn't have
> > the same kind of ring to it...
>
> Maybe I'm just a messy person, but I really like this.
So does Microsoft. The registry has many entries where 128bit (?)
object-IDs are used. Very interesting to debug.
> It prevents upstream naming collisions
But reduces readability for humans to zero. We don't want that.> & opens multiple categories per package > completely. Mr Harring will hate it, At least you haven't tried to optimize it all by using XML ... > but the rest of us will use > `esearch -o "%p\n" "" | grep -e category -e keyword`. *head explodes* No. As much as I like the idea of a "better" portage, a binary obfuscation won't help. It might make portage more resilient to one kind of problem, but forget debugging then. Patrick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
