In my opinion we should spend our time and skills to solve more important issues and problems. On 8 Jan 2016 18:53, "Domen Kožar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Going for attribute set names is hard, since we have many aliases. > > We had a discussion about this at NixCon (I think Oliver Charles has the > notes). > > In general, the only thing that really matters here is not to waste people > time. Currently it's suboptimal, I'd really just be happy if we had flat > structure. That does impose problems since it's hard to find a system to > categorize software. > > It's really worth checking out what other package managers do and see who > is happy about their structure. > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:47 PM, zimbatm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The issue with naming is that everyone has their opinion. >> >> Since other smart people have already played the categorization game can >> I suggest to restrict the discussion to which *existing* structure we >> should adopt ? >> There are a lot of big repositories out there: debian, gentoo portage, >> archlinux, pkgsrc, ... One of them is bound to work, mostly. The nice >> benefit would also be of not having to talk about categorization ever >> again, unless the packaged project doesn't exist in the canonical >> repository. >> >> I don't care what structure we chose as long as it's shallower than what >> we have right now. Like OP I'm tired of searching for packages and then >> entering long paths in my shell. >> >> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 at 15:03 Bjørn Forsman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 8 January 2016 at 15:58, Vladimír Čunát <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Personally, I would make it much flatter and also make it (almost) >>> > exactly correspond to our *attribute* hierarchy. >>> >>> That's a good idea, I think! >>> >>> /Bjørn >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nix-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nix-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
