On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted > > those remotes to the source package used to build them all. > > I think in the event they're a form of conventional > > foo > foo-dev > foo-dbg > > etc, under the knowledge that those things can't possibly map to other > gentoo packages, we should codify only the first of those, and then have > it placed on the iteroperating code to make logical inferences from > that. > > "foo-dev" in a search query would map to "foo" if no "foo-dev" existed. > > But yeah, lots of complexity there. > > That's why I'd just say those facets shouldn't really be mapped > explicitly. > > The general pattern being: > > "If a debian id can be conjugated from another debian id by guessing > with a generic algorithm, only index the former"
It is common for debian package names contain version numbers, besides other ugliness: https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libavcodec&searchon=names&suite=stable§ion=all You have searched for packages that names contain libavcodec in suite(s) stable, all sections, and all architectures. Found 4 matching packages. Package libavcodec-dev Package libavcodec-extra Package libavcodec-extra-56 Package libavcodec56 Obviously numbered package name libavcodec56 can be an attribute of exact ebuild, but not of a Gentoo package. With this ugliness of Debian packages naming, I'm afraid the proposed change won't take off.