Ned Ludd wrote:
>On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>
>
>>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
>>I ever seen.
>>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
>>pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>>
>>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with
>>implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
>>
>>Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I
>>think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such
>>a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted,
>>obv.)..
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>
>
>Diego:
>This is not directed at you solely but expresses my general feelings on
>the topic of ever moving packages.
>
>I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of
>time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody.
>Invalidates binary package trees. It places stress on rsync servers. It
>makes people have to rewrite rsync_exclude files. Makes it harder for
>scripts that interact with portage. And in the end really gains us next
>to nothing. Please stop moving stuff around for cosmetic reasons. I see
>far to many threads about changing stuff. No real valuable work ever
>gets done. Stuff simply just gets shifted around somebody can think of a
>new way to categorize existing data.
>
>
>
I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
dev-scheme directory.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
