Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties of categories and tags. You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that they didn't originally represent. From a package mangler perspective,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Wyatt Epp
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties of categories and tags. You are trying to redefine categories in terms

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: What I was describing is the difference between fundamental

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ciaran McCreesh: On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: What

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Kent Fredric
On 25 March 2014 03:55, Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. A trivial example, a user want to know all terminals available in portage. Of course he could try a `emerge --searchdesc terminal`, but then he would get

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread yac
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:39:06 +1300 Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 03:55, Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. A trivial example, a user want to know all terminals available in portage.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Kent Fredric
On 29 March 2014 09:56, yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: terminal ∩ jabber ∩ client And now you want *only* terminal terminals, do you have to search for terminal ∩ !( jabber ∪ client ∪ everything ∪ else ) ? Or terminal ∩ emulator ( Which may include terminals for emulators instead of terminal

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Gordon Pettey
And now you file a bug to get that incorrectly applied terminal tag changed to cli, because they don't mean the same thing. On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 March 2014 09:56, yac y...@gentoo.org wrote: terminal ∩ jabber ∩ client And now you

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Wyatt Epp
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote: This example for me suggests we'll need to have some kind of process of defining what tags should be used for what things, similar to how we have a process for global USE, mostly, because inconsistency is a bad thing

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Monday 24 of March 2014 16:28:44 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400 | Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: | A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. | | Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff | actually working?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-28 Thread yac
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:02:30 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-26 Thread yac
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:31:45 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:03:08 +0100 Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote: No, categories are essentially directories. fixed: categories are essentially also directories. Also? No, categories are *essentially*

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread Jan Matejka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:25:12 +0100 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100 Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote: Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can express relationship of 1:N while

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread Jan Matejka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:32:40 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Who is going to approve/disapprove tagable attributes and the tags themselves? How will you resolve disagreements people have? Sounds like a job for QA What

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread Jan Matejka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:40:20 -0400 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: TBH, I don't like the use of XML at all. No, we don't need to go one level (format) deeper. The 'all' thing is probably unnecessary What problem does having 'all' tag

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread Jan Matejka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. -A It might be worthwile to prototype this

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Jan Matejka: I've always wondered is we allowed portage to have one additional level of nesting if that'd help any (i.e., games-* - games/*). Squashing games-*/ to just games/ and defining genre by tags. Seems pretty doable, I like this.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-25 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:03:08 +0100 Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote: No, categories are essentially directories. fixed: categories are essentially also directories. Also? No, categories are *essentially* directories: they keep files apart that should not go together. In precisely that way,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 24/03/2014 02:43, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes, and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or more of these attributes or sometimes even

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:32:40 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/03/2014 02:43, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes, and the thing

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100 Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote: Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N No, categories are essentially directories. I was asking about tags, not about categories. It

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Damien Levac
On 14-03-24 10:25 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100 Jan Matejka y...@gentoo.org wrote: Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N No, categories are essentially directories. I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400 Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. I didn't ask for an explanation on the mailing list. I quoted [1] because it needs to be more specific exactly where it needs to be more specific. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400 Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff actually working? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Damien Levac
On 14-03-24 12:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400 Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff actually working? I have no example for

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Wyatt Epp
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400 Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: A lot of people already replied to this question: package search. Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:31:43 -0400 Damien Levac damien.le...@gmail.com wrote: That being said, I am surprised that having no example showing it works should be a deal breaker for trying it out. Wouldn't that mindset kill innovation? I ask, because this isn't the first time tags have been

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 + hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. Sounds good, but how do we get

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. A possible problem with this would be whether much maintainers would be concerned enough to spend their

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Alexander Hof
Alec Warner dixit: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Without expecting to have any weight on the discussion, I just wanted to let you know: As a system maintainer I like to use the categories, e.g. when doing 'eix -I media-fonts/' or in package.use 'media-fonts/* X'.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 + hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ciaran McCreesh: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 + hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags And do what with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo history as a giant mistake. Why? jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23/03/14 15:46, Jeroen Roovers wrote: This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo history as a giant mistake. It does not matter. Just remove that line. It is irrelevant. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 + hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. A possible problem with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: so I'm not entirely interested in tag consistency What are they for then if I cannot efficiently use them to search for software? (which I cannot, if there is no

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 hasufell: Alec Warner: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: so I'm not entirely interested in tag consistency What are they for then if I cannot efficiently use them to search for software? (which I cannot,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org napisał(a): https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Honestly, I don't think metadata.xml is a good place for it. While I like the consistency with general use of that file, I feel like it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Michał Górny: Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org napisał(a): https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org napisał(a): https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Honestly, I don't think metadata.xml is a good place for it. While I like the consistency

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote: Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time. I expect that people other than

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote: Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 23/03/2014 22:08, hasufell wrote: Michał Górny: Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org napisał(a): https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the tree -- to do

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 17:40:20 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote: Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 03/23/2014 17:51, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 17:40:20 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43 Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote: Tags, on

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Kent Fredric
On 24 March 2014 11:54, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by an individual tag? A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is prohibited by the spec? I don't use XML often (if at all), so I am not familiar

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 03/23/2014 19:18, Kent Fredric wrote: On 24 March 2014 11:54, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote: That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by an individual tag? A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is prohibited by the spec? I don't use

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes, and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or more of these attributes or sometimes even none. Music and movie genres are an excellent

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:03:38 +0100 Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: On 23/03/14 15:46, Jeroen Roovers wrote: This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo history as a giant mistake. That's not what I wrote. It's a quotation. It does not matter. Just remove

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-23 Thread Wyatt Epp
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Ack, this had to happen on a weekend when I wasn't paying attention! And you beat me to it, too-- I was working on something in this vein, but wasn't quite satisfied with the design

[gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-22 Thread Alec Warner
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. -A

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-22 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Object or forever hold your peace. Or argue for 100 posts, either way. -A Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this only works if we have some sort of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-22 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:48 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least more common ones. The alternative to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

2014-03-22 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ciaran McCreesh: On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem. Finding packages. Descriptions are