lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
[...]
>> app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports
>> the postfix "@repository" to let users force the installation of a
>> package from a specific repository.
>
> @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo
> dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax?
I wrote "postfix" not "prefix". Sets use "@" prefix.
Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name.
Yeah but "emerge @overlay" would be obviously illegal. So your argument
is a bit pointless ;)
For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting
confused over the different meanings of the @ sign.
I do not want to trigger a discussion like the one PHP had when choosing
namespace separators, but we got the "::" established in Paludis and
Paludis is used by way more Gentoo people than equo.
"::" C++/PHP/whatever separator has nothing to do with the purpose of
"@overlay".
Personally I think the PHP namespace syntax issue is a very good
analogy. There's an established syntax, even if it's not a written
standard, already used in a very similar situation, and that should be
taken into account.
Paludis is not a Gentoo project and doesn't follow Gentoo features
validation rules.
So is Entropy. If Paludis has its own syntax it doesn't automatically
mean that Gentoo Portage *has to* follow it.
I prefer a more democratic way => discussing here.
As far as I can see, a discussion is happening. You started a discussion
here and others mentioned that there is a specific syntax already used
for this by a very similar application.
You appear to be the only one who's arguing against that syntax. As a
user, I have to agree that using @ for multiple purposes, even if it
can't be applied to the same purposes in different locations, is
potentially confusing, even if not just plain silly.
As a side note, I think I've read somewhere that it may in the future be
possible to specify sets in package.* (which I assume would be done
using the @set-name syntax), but can't remember where off-hand. This may
have just been a suggestion, but if it ever is implemented, it would
surely add to the confusion.
AllenJB
So it only seems logical to me to use the wider-known and at the same
time ambiguity-free "operator".
Alex
