[gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Jon Ellis]

The sound team is planning to split up media-sound. It currently
contains 150+ apps and they cover a wide range of applications.

The first phase of this is to create a new category, 'media-music' that
will contain (obviously) all the music related ebuilds. We plan to
define media-music packages as packages which relate to the creation of
music. Players (mp3/ogg/whatever) will remain in media-sound.

The proposed list of builds to move is in bug 20963 [1]. Due to the
number of packages moving, it's likely to take a while. We'll probably
do things a few at a time to make sure things stay stable.

Once this is done we plan to look at what is left and determine if
additional categories are needed.

Let us know if you have any comments / concerns. (-dev or sound@g.o)

Thanks

j.

1. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20963


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 02/06/2003 at 19:19:18(+0900), Jon Ellis used 0.9Kbytes just to say:
> Let us know if you have any comments / concerns. (-dev or sound@g.o)

This media-music name is a little confusing. I would have never expected to
find jack-*, normalize or sox in there. Mostly the jack series.

-- 
 /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
/ Georgi Georgiev    (-<     / Row, row, row your bits, gently  \
\ chutz@chubaka.net  /\   .o)\ down the stream...               /
/ +81(90)6266-1163  V_/_ |(/)/                                  \
\___________________________/\__________________________________/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[rob holland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]



--On Monday, June 02, 2003 19:58:53 +0900 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> 
wrote:

> On 02/06/2003 at 19:19:18(+0900), Jon Ellis used 0.9Kbytes just to say:
>> Let us know if you have any comments / concerns. (-dev or sound@g.o)
>
> This media-music name is a little confusing. I would have never expected
> to find jack-*, normalize or sox in there. Mostly the jack series.

We're open to suggestions :) We just want to split media-sound up into 
sensible categories. Its too big as it is. People who use Jack are 
generally using it to create music as far as I know.

--

robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Ian Phillips]

How about media-makemusic as a more descriptive category name. If I were
new to Gentoo I'd be confused by media-music and media-sound.

Ian.

-- 
#ifndef  __COMMON_SENSE__ | Ian Phillips
#include <std_disclaimer> | TIBCO Software Inc.
#endif                    | www.tibco.com




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[rob holland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]


--On Monday, June 02, 2003 13:46:51 +0200 Ian Phillips <ianp@tibco.com> 
wrote:

> How about media-makemusic as a more descriptive category name. If I were
> new to Gentoo I'd be confused by media-music and media-sound.

media-compose maybe?

media-makemusic seems a little clumsy somehow :/

--

robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 02/06/2003 at 12:55:31(+0000), rob holland used 0.8Kbytes just to say:
> 
> --On Monday, June 02, 2003 13:46:51 +0200 Ian Phillips <ianp@tibco.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> >How about media-makemusic as a more descriptive category name. If I were
> >new to Gentoo I'd be confused by media-music and media-sound.
> 
> media-compose maybe?

compose would exclude a lot of packages (i.e. it wouldn't be big enough). I was
going to suggest media-edit, but somehow it doesn't sound right either.


-- 
 /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
/ Georgi Georgiev    (-<     / Hat check girl: "Goodness! What  \
\ chutz@chubaka.net  /\   .o)\ lovely diamonds!" Mae West:      /
/ +81(90)6266-1163  V_/_ |(/)/ "Goodness had nothin' to do with \
\                   ^^^^^^^^^\ it, dearie." -- "Night After     /
 \                           / Night", 1932                     \
  \_________________________/\__________________________________/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Troy Dack]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:17, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> On 02/06/2003 at 12:55:31(+0000), rob holland used 0.8Kbytes just to say:
> > 
> > --On Monday, June 02, 2003 13:46:51 +0200 Ian Phillips <ianp@tibco.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >How about media-makemusic as a more descriptive category name. If I were
> > >new to Gentoo I'd be confused by media-music and media-sound.
> > 
> > media-compose maybe?
> 
> compose would exclude a lot of packages (i.e. it wouldn't be big enough). I was
> going to suggest media-edit, but somehow it doesn't sound right either.

I'll throw my two bob in ...

What about:
	media-players
or
	sound-compose (sound creation apps)
	sound-players (players, duh)
	sound-libs (sound related bits 'n' bobs .. alsa?)
	sound-tools (mixers etc..)

The only drawback with specific sound-* categories is that a good
portion of players (in particular) play more than just sound (ie: video
as well).

-- 
Troy Dack        "Yes, yes, I know that, Sydney ... Everybody knows that!
tad@gentoo.org    ... But look: Four wrongs squared, minus two wrongs to 
                  the fourth power, divided by this formula, do make a
                  right." -- Gary Larson

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4D90BE3C
Key fingerprint = 1F3D 6C15 16AA 09D5 0C96  92E5 FD89 16F9 4D90 BE3C
 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Jon Ellis]

On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 09:37  PM, Troy Dack wrote:
>
> I'll throw my two bob in ...
>
> What about:
> 	media-players
> or
> 	sound-compose (sound creation apps)
> 	sound-players (players, duh)
> 	sound-libs (sound related bits 'n' bobs .. alsa?)
> 	sound-tools (mixers etc..)
>
> The only drawback with specific sound-* categories is that a good
> portion of players (in particular) play more than just sound (ie: video
> as well).

Right, this is where we end up, with a bunch of categories that still
aren't quite perfect. Oddly enough(!), we went through this process,
trying to come up with a bunch of sound-* or audio-* categories. The
end result was never quite as clean as grouping things together in
something like media-music.

In my mind, the good thing about the media-music approach is that it
doesn't have to be the end of the process. If more sub-division is
needed of media-sound (or media-music) it can be done.

Perhaps some of the things in our list (for instance, JACK) don't
belong in media-music and we'll end up making new categories for them
in the future (media-routing?) However, right now media-sound is all
over the place, the trees hide the forest, etc.

Someone coming to gentoo to do music is going to notice media-music, as
easily as they will find media-sound, but, they are much more likely to
find what they are looking for in category containing 50 ebuilds than
150!

j.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 02/06/2003 at 21:58:10(+0900), Jon Ellis used 1.4Kbytes just to say:
> Someone coming to gentoo to do music is going to notice media-music, as
> easily as they will find media-sound, but, they are much more likely to
> find what they are looking for in category containing 50 ebuilds than
> 150!

Actually I have the feeling that the number of categories in portage is
becoming a problem as well. It is sometimes hard to find the one you need. A
tree-like structure would have been nice, but I guess it is too late for that
and I don't know what the reasoning behind the single-level "some-thing"
categorization is.

BTW, if the duplicate-names package problem is resolved once and for all, it
wouldn't be too bad an idea to let a package exist in different categories at
the same time. A symlink could do the trick, and it would also make sure that
more people find the package they need. It would also make for categorizing
those hard to categorize packages.

Am I getting too much off-topic?

-- 
 /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
/ Georgi Georgiev    (-<     / Must be getting close to town -- \
\ chutz@chubaka.net  /\   .o)\ we're hitting more people.       /
/ +81(90)6266-1163  V_/_ |(/)/                                  \
\___________________________/\__________________________________/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[rob holland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]


All,

Unless anyone has strong objects with us using media-music for now, I think 
we should go ahead. Surely reducing the amount of packages in media-sound 
has to be a good thing? Media-music might not be perfect but its still a 
step in the right direction. Rather than us spending the next few months 
pondering on the perfect name..

We can always change it later. Like I say, I think media-music is better 
than media-sound for things we've said we're going to move.

Unless anyone voices a strong objection (and backs it up ;) in the next two 
days we'll go ahead with the move using media-music.

rob

--

robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Todd Berman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1136 bytes --]

Just to preface this, I have no personal objections to this move at all.
However, I think you should wait a bit more than 2 days for any possible
objections/suggestions. Now, I'm not saying lets wait a month to make
sure no one has anything different/better to say about it. But a wait of
4-5 days does seem somewhat appropriate.

I could be wrong through :)

--Todd
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:11, rob holland wrote:
> All,
> 
> Unless anyone has strong objects with us using media-music for now, I think 
> we should go ahead. Surely reducing the amount of packages in media-sound 
> has to be a good thing? Media-music might not be perfect but its still a 
> step in the right direction. Rather than us spending the next few months 
> pondering on the perfect name..
> 
> We can always change it later. Like I say, I think media-music is better 
> than media-sound for things we've said we're going to move.
> 
> Unless anyone voices a strong objection (and backs it up ;) in the next two 
> days we'll go ahead with the move using media-music.
> 
> rob
> 
> --
> 
> robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[rob holland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]


--On Monday, June 02, 2003 11:36:31 -0400 Todd Berman <tberman@gentoo.org> 
wrote:

> Just to preface this, I have no personal objections to this move at all.
> However, I think you should wait a bit more than 2 days for any possible
> objections/suggestions. Now, I'm not saying lets wait a month to make
> sure no one has anything different/better to say about it. But a wait of
> 4-5 days does seem somewhat appropriate.

Consider the deadline set to Friday evening then :)

Sorry, for setting it so short, I didn't know what was appropriate :)

rob

--

robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Media-music category

[Todd Berman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

Thanks, it just seems a bit more reasonable, as well, who wants to move
everything twice? :)

--Todd
> Consider the deadline set to Friday evening then :)
> 
> Sorry, for setting it so short, I didn't know what was appropriate :)
> 
> rob
> 
> --
> 
> robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] namespace and categories ( was: Media-music category)

[Rolf Veen]

Georgi Georgiev wrote:

> BTW, if the duplicate-names package problem is resolved once and for all, it
> wouldn't be too bad an idea to let a package exist in different categories at
> the same time. A symlink could do the trick, and it would also make sure that
> more people find the package they need. It would also make for categorizing
> those hard to categorize packages.

I would separate namespace and categories: let portage work with a
*flat* namespace that does not depend on categorization. A package may
well fit in more than one category, as you say.

I find categorization too arbitrary to include in a robust tool like
portage. So, give the users a 'category view' on top a flat namespace,
but use these categories only for information. In fact, categories can
be made of only a hierarchy of symlinks to the main directory:

¿ Too much files in the main directory then ? That's is a different
problem. But not one that justifies, on its own, the use of categories.

Rolf

(My first post here: hi all)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] namespace and categories ( was: Media-music category)

[Todd Berman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 944 bytes --]

> I would separate namespace and categories: let portage work with a
> *flat* namespace that does not depend on categorization. A package may
> well fit in more than one category, as you say.
As far as I know, portage does work on a flat namespace, well, relatively flat at least :)
> I find categorization too arbitrary to include in a robust tool like
> portage. So, give the users a 'category view' on top a flat namespace,
> but use these categories only for information. In fact, categories can
> be made of only a hierarchy of symlinks to the main directory:
> 
> ¿ Too much files in the main directory then ? That's is a different
> problem. But not one that justifies, on its own, the use of categories.
>
> Rolf
> 
> (My first post here: hi all)

wrt to the rest of that, I am actually in favor of MORE categorization.
I think instead of having dev-this, dev-that, etc, it should be dev/this
and dev/that.

--Todd

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] namespace and categories ( was: Media-music category)

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 02/06/2003 at 12:05:24(-0400), Todd Berman used 1.4Kbytes just to say:
> > I would separate namespace and categories: let portage work with a
> > *flat* namespace that does not depend on categorization. A package may
> > well fit in more than one category, as you say.
> As far as I know, portage does work on a flat namespace, well, relatively flat at least :)
> > I find categorization too arbitrary to include in a robust tool like
> > portage. So, give the users a 'category view' on top a flat namespace,
> > but use these categories only for information. In fact, categories can
> > be made of only a hierarchy of symlinks to the main directory:
> > 
> > ¿ Too much files in the main directory then ? That's is a different
> > problem. But not one that justifies, on its own, the use of categories.
> >
> > Rolf
> > 
> > (My first post here: hi all)
> 
> wrt to the rest of that, I am actually in favor of MORE categorization.
> I think instead of having dev-this, dev-that, etc, it should be dev/this
> and dev/that.

Greatness!

It was about time we got to that conclusion. A tree-like category view is what
portage needs. I add my vote in support for that. It seems lots of packages
would have to be renamed though - app-emacs/vm -> vm-emacs, app-xemacs/ispell
-> ispell-xemacs etc.

-- 
 /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
/ Georgi Georgiev    (-<     / Given its constituency, the only \
\ chutz@chubaka.net  /\   .o)\ thing I expect to be "open"      /
/ +81(90)6266-1163  V_/_ |(/)/ about [the Open Software         \
\                   ^^^^^^^^^\ Foundation] is its mouth. --     /
 \                           / John Gilmore                     \
  \_________________________/\__________________________________/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] namespace and categories ( was: Media-music category)

[Rolf Veen]

Todd Berman wrote:

> As far as I know, portage does work on a flat namespace, well,
> relatively flat at least :)

As long as categories appear inside the ebuilds, and ebuilds
depend on categories, I would not say that.

Rolf.




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list