Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:56:43 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15:12 Wed 06 Feb , Alec Warner wrote: > > On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > > > > > Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just > > > > > fulfill different purposes. Tags can not replace categories > > > > > but might be a useful extension to categories for the tasks I > > > > > described, not more not less. They are not better or worse, > > > > > just different:) > > > > > > > > Why don't you think they can replace categories? > > > > > > Quick answer: Because there are packages with the same name in > > > different categories. How would tags deal with that? > > > > Techincally you could enforce UNIQUE(pkg,[tags]), I agree thats a > > poor constraint though ;) > > I would probably print the ambiguous package name, with info on each > package, and a list of tags unique to each that could be used to > specify which one you want. Perhaps a numbered list too. That only works for the user interface, not so good for depend strings, config files and pretty much everything else. Marius -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 15:12 Wed 06 Feb , Alec Warner wrote: > On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > > > > Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill > > > > different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a > > > > useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not > > > > less. They are not better or worse, just different:) > > > > > > Why don't you think they can replace categories? > > > > Quick answer: Because there are packages with the same name in > > different categories. How would tags deal with that? > > Techincally you could enforce UNIQUE(pkg,[tags]), I agree thats a poor > constraint though ;) I would probably print the ambiguous package name, with info on each package, and a list of tags unique to each that could be used to specify which one you want. Perhaps a numbered list too. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > > > Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill > > > different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a > > > useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not > > > less. They are not better or worse, just different:) > > > > Why don't you think they can replace categories? > > Quick answer: Because there are packages with the same name in > different categories. How would tags deal with that? Techincally you could enforce UNIQUE(pkg,[tags]), I agree thats a poor constraint though ;) > > Long answer: Well maybe there is a way. But I think that it would > probably take a long time to make such a change. Technically tags > could probably replace categories but then their would be no definite > "full" name for that package anymore. > > Someone calls it foo/app and someone bar/app, and since there is also > fuu/app which is a different application but with the same name, > nobody would no for sure about package is being taked about without > checking if his beloved foo/app is the same as bar/app the other guy > is talking about. Also how do you sort the packages in the tree? all > in one directory?! every package in the directories of each tag it > belongs to using hardlinks? Filtering packages on tags would be very difficult without a metadata cache for metadata XML as you would need to pull down each package's metadata.xml to determine if it meets your filtering requirements. Excluding individual packages wouldn't be that hard although I imagine there may be problems with the length of the rsync command line if your filtering is too aggressive ;) > > -- Jonas > -- > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not less. They are not better or worse, just different:) Why don't you think they can replace categories? For example: # eix -e fuse * app-emulation/fuse Description: Free Unix Spectrum Emulator by Philip Kendall * dev-java/fuse [1] Description: Fuse is a lightweight resource injection library specifically designed for GUI programming. * sys-fs/fuse Description: An interface for filesystems implemented in userspace. Also imagine all those packages sorted into subdirs just by first character of the name (because having them all in one huge dir would be murder), yuck :) -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > > Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill > > different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a > > useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not > > less. They are not better or worse, just different:) > > Why don't you think they can replace categories? Quick answer: Because there are packages with the same name in different categories. How would tags deal with that? Long answer: Well maybe there is a way. But I think that it would probably take a long time to make such a change. Technically tags could probably replace categories but then their would be no definite "full" name for that package anymore. Someone calls it foo/app and someone bar/app, and since there is also fuu/app which is a different application but with the same name, nobody would no for sure about package is being taked about without checking if his beloved foo/app is the same as bar/app the other guy is talking about. Also how do you sort the packages in the tree? all in one directory?! every package in the directories of each tag it belongs to using hardlinks? -- Jonas -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 20:11 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill > different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a > useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not > less. They are not better or worse, just different:) Why don't you think they can replace categories? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds like what you really want are tags, not categories ... Yes and no. tags would definitely be better than subcategories. But for some packages a new category would probably still make sense like app-scm ( http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg27404.html). > You could play with adding them into metadata.xml and patching some > existing search tools to search for them. Added to my TODO list. Extending existing search tool would only be a first step however. The ability to exclude/include packages from the tree would also be a useful feature (and that doesn't seam to fit the design of the tools I have used). > I'm all for the idea of tags, > and I think it's a better approach than categories. Thinking about it again I would say tags and categories just fulfill different purposes. Tags can not replace categories but might be a useful extension to categories for the tasks I described, not more not less. They are not better or worse, just different:) -- Jonas -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
On 18:35 Mon 04 Feb , Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > So I ask you: why are there no such categories? Of course I can > imagine a few reasons myself for not having more categories: > > (1) a category must in general include n packages > (2) more categories are evil, once we start creating new once there is no end > (3) moving packages in the tree is bad, things break > (4) who does all the work > (5) subcategories would be better, but to implement this... > > > Please point me to any discussions on this subject. Keep in mind I am > not demanding new categories, I am not even asking for them to be > created. I simply would like to know why there aren't more. And if you > developers are also interested in more categories I would love to make > some suggestions and help with looking through the tree to see which > packages would have to be moved. > > Reasons why more categories might be usefull: Sounds like what you really want are tags, not categories ... You could play with adding them into metadata.xml and patching some existing search tools to search for them. I'm all for the idea of tags, and I think it's a better approach than categories. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
