On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 08:41:46PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:37:47 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:15:38 +0100 > > > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:57:32 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > | Things that package moves cause: > > > > | 1) Dependencies throughout the tree have to be updated > > > > > > > > And? This isn't a breakage. > > > > > > It is however unnecessary inconvenience for the user, even assuming > > > the support for moves is bug-free. > > > > Think you're ignoring that proper categorization *is* useful to the > > user. One of the costs of that is moving when necessary. > > My main point is that "proper" categorisation is subjective. What > should be in net-voip for some people, should be in net-im for others > (since many packages provide functionality in both areas). Thus whether > or not it moves are necessary is subjective.
How often does a package lie equally across multiple categories? I think your point (pulling probably fairly close figures out of the head) is relevant to all of 100 or so packages in the tree, out of 11k. > > Sounds of it, you don't much care for categorizatin- that's fine, > > please keep in mind some people do find it a net gain to maintain the > > categorization however. > > I'm happy with the idea of categorisation in general, I do however think > that the categorisation in the tree as it stands is simply inadequate. Examples would be lovely- numerous examples specifically. Please keep in mind the tree holds (as of about 15 hours back) 11,212 packages. Pointing at one or two packages to label all categorization as inadequate won't suffice, going to need to clear at *least* 1% of the tree to back that assertion up. > > > > | 3) Binary packages go out-of-date > > > > > > > > So rebuild them. Binary packages go out of date whenever someone > > > > does a version bump too. > > > > > > So your opinion is that it's fine to cause users to rebuild stuff > > > even when the package itself hasn't changed? > > > > You're ignoring what fixpackages does. Ever noticed how it's far > > faster when you don't have buildpkgs enabled? ;) > > I certainly noticed how much time is lost when fixpackages chunters > through built packages to fix stuff up. My usual response to criticism of that sort applies- you know where the src is ;) Doing things *correctly* isn't always the same as doing things *fast*. Throwing correctness bits out in the name of speed is a no go (iow, fixpackages ought to be nonoptional). > > Again, you may not view categories as useful, but others may. > > My experience with categories as they stand, is that to find a package > whose location I don't already know I have to search all categories > anyway - it's certainly not possible to predict in which category a > package lives. Not much experience then. Your use scenario above is "I'm looking for a package", not "I'm trying to find packages in category x". Of course categories don't matter to you in your case- you're not *using* them. What others are talking about how ever is folks who *are* using categories- say to see if any new packages were added to games-strategy. > > > > So again, you've *not* given any reasons to avoid sensible package > > > > moves. > > > > > > Ah; now you're qualifying. What do you consider to be a sensible > > > package move? I would define it as moves where the package is > > > blatantly in the wrong category (e.g. a voip package being found in > > > the app-text category) rather than moves where the package might be > > > a little more appropriate for one category than another - > > > especially where that judgement is subjective. > > > > Arguement over how to categorize I'll gladly stay out of, although > > one comment- for pkgs that are (at the initial time of adding) one of > > a kind, creating a category for it's specific flavor doesn't make > > much sense. > > How to categorise is critical, if they are to have any meaning to > users. Even if a pkg is slightly miscategorized, it still is a fair bit more useful then having a flat namespace. > If you want to see if a package is in the tree, do you go > straight to it, or do you find yourself doing things like: > > ls -d /usr/portage/*/<packagename>* > > to find it? err... emerge -s <packagename> pquery <packagename> paludis -q <packagename> I'm honestly not really sure what point you're making there. ~harring
pgpnCBqQOyGxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
