From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28228 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Jun 2003 07:24:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 21304 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 07:24:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:34 +0800 From: Michael Kohl To: Joseph Hardin Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030605152134.43bff13c.citizen428@cargal.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20030605144733.317a7b1c.citizen428@cargal.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Operating-System: Gentoo Linux Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.A/vmBi)KC_cX/8" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] (FS) Attributes for Ebuilds? X-Archives-Salt: 74c859d4-69e8-4fb0-a945-ee64118a2f62 X-Archives-Hash: a20b1c8781177aa01290dc5f325283ab --=.A/vmBi)KC_cX/8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:02:35 -0600 Joseph Hardin wrote: > Why do this at a filesystem level? I may be missing the point, but why > not just incorporate this into a seperate tool and keep a file to > store all the comments and data. Because: a. it should be faster (at least judging from my admittedly limited experience with this matter) b. you wouldn't have to build a new tool, filesystems capable of handling these kind of attributes have them already c. live queries are pretty nifty and maybe much harder to incorporate with files (in a live query you show all files having a specific atrribute set, when a new file with this attribute is created it immediately shows up in this selection). If you find a BeOS zealot I'm sure he can explain all this much better to you, because that's one of the things quite a lot of people seemed to like about BeFS. d. all this benefits without having to force a database as a dependancy on Gentoo users. Also note that I didn't propose or request this, I was just interested in some feedback and discussion if/why this is a good/bad approach in handling this category issue (and others, like if the name of a package changes you maybe could keep the old name as an attributes). I just think that Portage is hell of a package managment system and think discussion about how to further improve it (even my suggestion may not even be an improvement, but let the people who know Portage much better than I do clarify this) couldn't hurt. Michael P.S. I'm CC'ing this to the list, I hope it's ok for you, but I don't want to answer a similar question again. -- www.cargal.org GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3 Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org Registered Linux User #278726 --=.A/vmBi)KC_cX/8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+3u+C3i2RopDKCeMRAoeYAJ9JuwsuJ9/SRUOfxrV6nkPCxRV7qwCgk6US ePSjWfrnJ1u+ICKq6KvKxts= =J1xf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.A/vmBi)KC_cX/8--