Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:25 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> foser wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> > 
> >>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
> >>within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
> >>To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
> >>dev-scheme directory.
> > 
> > The current set-up isn't user-browseable anyway and hasn't been for a
> > long time. I don't think the focus should be on correcting that in the
> > tree, the user tools should be improved really.
> > 
> 
> Then why is their a browsable "Categories" link on the packages site?
> 
> http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/
> 
> I don't agree with Ned. Organizing the packages logically makes things
> less confusing for the end-user and developers alike and doesn't qualify
> as a "cosmetic reason". It *is* valuable work, IMHO.

And how long before somebody proposes sys-auth?

*poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
move 
all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or 
six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will 
go full circle before long if we consistently keep shuffling packages
around.

All in all this is seriously the reason why ebuilds have a DESCRIPTION= 
and one of the reasons we have metadata.xml files.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list