On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 21:21 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Sunday 05 June 2005 21:03, Ned Ludd wrote: > > 14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description. > You missed pam_ssh. And that's just an example. > By the way... mind telling everyone here how did you do that search? I still > feel that looking for pam things in a *single* place is more useful than > looking in many different places. I ran q search pam | grep -i -v SPAM and it took 0.665 seconds. Quite a bit faster than having to cd $PORTDIR and cd foo ; cd .. ; cd bar ; cd ..
> If you feel that sys-auth is more logical, seems good to me. I haven't said > that it *must* be sys-pam.. was a proposal and as proposal is something I'd > like to discuss. Not really. We currently have about 138 categories and 19443 ebuilds in 9413 uniq package names. That's something like 68 on average packages per category with the addition 1 new category it only brings that average down to 67 things. I counted about ~20 PAM things in the entire tree which is less than one third of the global per package average category count. > > If you really feel you must invalidate everybody else binary trees > > and adding a workload on others for your gain then go for it. > For my gain? Wait I was talking of me in this case but it's not just me. Sure it is. You proposed it. You make reference of being the one that needs to fix things more than one time. > I think everyone which is looking for pam modules would like to search > something like sys-pam, instead of looking here and there on the tree or > trying to use some strange black-magic queries. > By the way, if you're looking for pam modules, your results are quite full of > cruft. No strictly all PAM listed in the description. If something was missing from the description then that given ebuild should be fixed to reflect it. > > But adding another category for what are clearly mostly system > > libraries does not make sense me in this case. > Currently sys-libs contains a very wide range of things, just a couple of > them > seems to be strictly related. As I said, if you feel sys-auth is better, > good. That would probably take also other things like courier-authlib for > example. > But sys-libs doesn't seem the right place for me. Please hold off on the creation of any new categories till robbat2 and Azarah get a chance to comment, if they are for it I'll shutup. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
