[gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end of a 
sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Andrew D. Fant]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end
of a
| sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?

Would sci-geo be geography or geology or geosciences?

Andy


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCOOlbOq80mJ2AvM0RAutfAJ4t1A1mViGYXvjeBB1WmGB+lAUjigCfSEEh
9xNfRgBhhBNhZz9FlA4Ysvc=
=yVXK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-* too verbose ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:17 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end of a
> sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?

actually, now that i look, arent all the sci-* categories needlessly 
pedantic ?
sci-astronomy -> sci-astro
sci-biology -> sci-bio
sci-calculators -> sci-calc
sci-chemistry -> sci-chem
sci-electronics -> sci-elec (unsure about this one)
sci-geosciences -> sci-geo
sci-libs -> nice & short !
sci-mathematics -> sci-math
sci-misc -> nice & short !
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Dan Meltzer]

or geometry or geopolography or geomancy or... :)


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:12 -0500, Andrew D. Fant <jfmuggs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end
> of a
> | sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?
> 
> Would sci-geo be geography or geology or geosciences?
> 
> Andy
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFCOOlbOq80mJ2AvM0RAutfAJ4t1A1mViGYXvjeBB1WmGB+lAUjigCfSEEh
> 9xNfRgBhhBNhZz9FlA4Ysvc=
> =yVXK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:44 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> or geometry or geopolography or geomancy or... :)

bah you hippies

sci-geosci then
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Andrew D. Fant]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:44 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> 
>>or geometry or geopolography or geomancy or... :)
> 
> 
> bah you hippies
> 
> sci-geosci then

Why do we need to reduce every portage category to the fewest characters 
  possible?  Don't you have tab completion set up on your system yet? :)

Andy


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]

maillog: 16/03/2005-21:20:12(-0500): Andrew D. Fant types
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end
> of a
> | sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?
> 
> Would sci-geo be geography or geology or geosciences?

Seeing how often geography and geoscience appear next to each other
(try Google), it would be even beneficial to put them in the same
category.

About geology:
Quote from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=geoscience:

ge·o·sci·ence
n.
    Any one of the sciences, such as geology or geochemistry, that deals
    with the earth.

So, sci-geo is good on this count.

-- 
 >   Georgi Georgiev    > I have great faith in fools -- self           >
<     chutz@gg3.net    <  confidence my friends call it. -- Edgar      <
 >  +81(90)6266-1163    > Allan Poe                                     >

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:57 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 16/03/2005-21:20:12(-0500): Andrew D. Fant types
> > Would sci-geo be geography or geology or geosciences?
>
> About geology:
> Quote from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=geoscience:
>
> ge·o·sci·ence
> n.
>     Any one of the sciences, such as geology or geochemistry, that deals
>     with the earth.

hmm, good call, thanks for this info

and considering how populous sci-geoscience is (4 pkgs!), i dont think it'd be 
a prob to bloat sci-geo* packages in it
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:53 pm, Andrew D. Fant wrote:
> Why do we need to reduce every portage category to the fewest characters
>   possible?  Don't you have tab completion set up on your system yet? :)

and if tab completion doesnt work ?  or you're using a category name in a 
script ?  i hate having to figure out exactly how to spell these things :p
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 16/03/2005-22:10:21(-0500): Mike Frysinger types
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:53 pm, Andrew D. Fant wrote:
> > Why do we need to reduce every portage category to the fewest
> > characters possible?  Don't you have tab completion set up on your
> > system yet? :)
> 
> and if tab completion doesnt work ?  or you're using a category name
> in a script ?  i hate having to figure out exactly how to spell these
> things :p

Which is one of the reasons why I am behind the idea of *unique* package
names, even if that involves some redundand naming. It's for the greater
good.  The package name being tied to its category is evil and it also
means that we'll never see multiple categories per package, or more
descriptive category names, or any other of these goodies. Ever.

-- 
*>   Georgi Georgiev   *> Lost interest? It's so bad I've lost         *>
<*    chutz@gg3.net    <* apathy.                                      <*
*>  +81(90)6266-1163   *>                                              *>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Olivier Fisette]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 16 March, 2005 09:17 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end of a
> sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

This was discussed on gentoo-science just before I created the categories and 
moved the packages. I decided to use full names for the sake of clarity, 
since some of the acronyms were not obvious and I wanted to be consistent for 
all sci-* categories. "sci-geo" is a good example. Does it mean geology or 
geography, does it include meteorology? "sci-geosciences" obviously includes 
all these. I agree its redundant, but I could not find anything better. 
"sci-ee" is another. While some people seemed to think ee is a really obvious 
abbreviation, I had no idea what it meant and prefered "sci-electronics".

After GLEP 34 is implemented, descriptions will be available for the 
categories so clear category names will be a bit less important. If you want 
all packages in sci-* moved again, though, I think you will have to do it 
yourself. And unless epkgmove has improved since I last used it, this will be 
boring and error prone. :(

Regards,

-- 
Olivier Fisette (ribosome)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1135 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:23PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Which is one of the reasons why I am behind the idea of *unique* package
> names, even if that involves some redundand naming. It's for the greater
> good.  The package name being tied to its category is evil and it also
> means that we'll never see multiple categories per package, or more
> descriptive category names, or any other of these goodies. Ever.
And what about packages that have the same name upstream, and yet do different
things? It's a nice concept, but not practical.

find $(<profiles/categories) -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 ! -name CVS -printf '%h %f\n' | sort  -k2  | uniq -f1 -dD
Shows we have 145 packages with non-unique names.

We've even got a few cases where there are 3 applications with the same name
upstream:
app-arch/par
app-text/par
dev-util/par
(2 other examples of the same thing as well).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-16-03 at 21:03 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:23PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > Which is one of the reasons why I am behind the idea of *unique* package
> > names, even if that involves some redundand naming. It's for the greater
> > good.  The package name being tied to its category is evil and it also
> > means that we'll never see multiple categories per package, or more
> > descriptive category names, or any other of these goodies. Ever.
> And what about packages that have the same name upstream, and yet do different
> things? It's a nice concept, but not practical.
> 
> find $(<profiles/categories) -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 ! -name CVS -printf '%h %f\n' | sort  -k2  | uniq -f1 -dD
> Shows we have 145 packages with non-unique names.
> 
> We've even got a few cases where there are 3 applications with the same name
> upstream:
> app-arch/par
> app-text/par
> dev-util/par
> (2 other examples of the same thing as well).

Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
name ?

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
x86 Security Liaison

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mark Watkins]

Maybe changing the gentoo doc's can do more to solve misunderstandings 
to do with these packages..

If people are taught from the beginning to think of a package as under a 
group from the beginning.

Hacking bash to autocomplete and cycle through different package groups 
would also be fun.. :-}

/Mark



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mark Watkins]

Maybe changing the gentoo doc's can do more to solve misunderstandings 
to do with these packages..

Ie, if people are taught from the beginning to think of a package as 
under a group...

Hacking bash to autocomplete and cycle through different package groups 
would also be fun.. :-}

/Mark



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2559 bytes --]

maillog: 16/03/2005-21:03:29(-0800): Robin H. Johnson types
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:29:23PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > Which is one of the reasons why I am behind the idea of *unique* package
> > names, even if that involves some redundand naming. It's for the greater
> > good.  The package name being tied to its category is evil and it also
> > means that we'll never see multiple categories per package, or more
> > descriptive category names, or any other of these goodies. Ever.
> And what about packages that have the same name upstream, and yet do different
> things? It's a nice concept, but not practical.
> 
> find $(<profiles/categories) -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 ! -name CVS -printf '%h %f\n' | sort  -k2  | uniq -f1 -dD
> Shows we have 145 packages with non-unique names.
> 
> We've even got a few cases where there are 3 applications with the same name
> upstream:
> app-arch/par
> app-text/par
> dev-util/par
> (2 other examples of the same thing as well).

I've been suggesting renaming packages appropriately, but the idea's
been shot down with 'We use upstream names' a few times already.

Still, I cannot restrain myself from hacking down your example from
above. It's just too good an oportunity to miss. :)


* app-arch/par
src_install() {
	dobin par || die
	dodoc AUTHORS NEWS README rs.doc
}

* app-text/par
src_install() {
	newbin par par-format || die
	doman par.1
	dodoc releasenotes par.doc
}

* dev-util/par
src_install () {
	dobin par
	dolib *.a *.so

	mv par.man par.1
	doman par.1
}

Let's start with app-text/par. 

- The binary is renamed to par-format to avoid a clash with the one from
  app-arch/par (If I'm wrong, correct me, this is just an assumption).
- The man page is left as par, so that if a user decides to look-up the
  usage of par-format, they have to type man par (overlooking I guess).
- To correct the above, the man page would also need to be renamed for
  consistency with the name of the binary.
- We would end up with a package that installs /usr/bin/par-format and a
  par-format.1 man page. What would be the big deal with renaming the
  package itself, then?

- app-arch/par and dev-util/par both install /usr/bin/par
- app-text/par and dev-util/par both install /usr..../man.1.gz

Fix these collisions, and I'll tell you how to fix the problem with
their names.

-- 
*)   Georgi Georgiev   *) A definition of teaching: casting fake       *)
(*    chutz@gg3.net    (* pearls before real swine. -- Bill Cain,      (*
*)  +81(90)6266-1163   *) "Stand Up Tragedy"                           *)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 17 March 2005 12:18 am, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
> name ?

if we do it's news to me
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 11:31 pm, Olivier Fisette wrote:
> After GLEP 34 is implemented, descriptions will be available for the
> categories so clear category names will be a bit less important. If you
> want all packages in sci-* moved again, though, I think you will have to do
> it yourself. And unless epkgmove has improved since I last used it, this
> will be boring and error prone. :(

i dont mind doing it ... plus i now have you bound saying it's ok !
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 17/03/2005-15:30:35(+1000): Mark Watkins types
> Maybe changing the gentoo doc's can do more to solve misunderstandings 
> to do with these packages..
> 
> If people are taught from the beginning to think of a package as under a 
> group from the beginning.

Group name change. I am happiness... I just can't do as well as those at
engrish.com, but the idea is that moving a package around the tree is
utterly irritating at the moment, exactly because the category is tied
to the name.

> Hacking bash to autocomplete and cycle through different package groups 
> would also be fun.. :-}

If I had to compare the situation with the categories to bash
autocompletion, I'm not sure which one I'd name more annoying. I guess I
can safely say that they are equally annoying, since neither is more
annoying by a factor, and as we all well know: ∞/(∞+Δ) ≅ 1

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () The first 90% of a project takes 90% of      ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    () the time, the last 10% takes the other 90%   ()
()  +81(90)6266-1163   () of the time.                                 ()

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]

maillog: 17/03/2005-14:33:12(+0900): Георги Георгиев types
> - app-arch/par and dev-util/par both install /usr/bin/par
> - app-text/par and dev-util/par both install /usr..../man.1.gz

This was of course:

- app-text/par and dev-util/par both install /usr..../par.1.gz

-- 
*>   Georgi Georgiev   *> What nonsense people talk about happy        *>
<*    chutz@gg3.net    <* marriages! A man can be happy with any       <*
*>  +81(90)6266-1163   *> woman so long as he doesn't love her. --     *>
<* ------------------- <* Oscar Wilde                                  <*

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-* too verbose ?

[Paul Waring]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:23:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> actually, now that i look, arent all the sci-* categories needlessly
> pedantic ?

Better to be too pedantic and descriptive than too concise and ambiguous. ;)

> sci-astronomy -> sci-astro
> sci-biology -> sci-bio

This one can easily end up like the geo* argument.  Biology?
Bioinformatics? (again you could argue that they should be under the
same category).

> sci-geosciences -> sci-geo

As has already been pointed out "geo" could mean geology, geosciences,
geochemistry and I'm sure there's others (although I suppose you could
argue they could all fall under the same category).

> sci-mathematics -> sci-math

This one I agree with, I can't see anyone being confused by
math/mathematics - no-one I know ever refers to maths by its full
name.

Paul

-- 
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant?

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2300 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:33:12PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> I've been suggesting renaming packages appropriately, but the idea's
> been shot down with 'We use upstream names' a few times already.
One unavoidable problem that will come up as a result of renaming
binaries to avoid collisions, is that if some other package expects them
by a specific name, it will have to be patched as well (I've seen a
Makefile that used dev-util/par).

> Still, I cannot restrain myself from hacking down your example from
> above. It's just too good an oportunity to miss. :)
Congratulations, you've found a bug.
We keep trying to squash the critters, but they proliferate like crazy.

Package collisions like this are actually really hard to detect in an
automated fashion (without installing every package you want to test).
We don't have any comprehensive database of the files that a package
installs (at least that I'm aware of). rpmfind and other databases exist
for other distros (packages.debian.org has this functionality too). This
data would probably come up as a by-product of a build tinderbox
(inside a Xen instance maybe?).

[snip bug data]
Would you mind copying this into a bug report, for the appropriate
maintainers? (they might not be reading this thread)

> Fix these collisions, and I'll tell you how to fix the problem with
> their names.
Actually, we are at somewhat of a chicken and egg problem, as it makes
it a reasonable amount of sense for the non-colliding package name to
reflect the name of the binary. I think it would be worthwhile to see if
there is any sane naming convention other flat-namespace distributions
have adopted for a package name with collisions, and try to stick to any
existing name scheme.
(See for example 'aggregate' and 'aggregate-flim', both packages are
known as 'aggregate' by upstream - they were developed independently,
without any knowledge that the other exists. They do roughly the same
thing, in two very different ways, but still have a slight
non-overlapping featureset).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-* too verbose ?

[Benno Schulenberg]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> actually, now that i look, arent all the sci-* categories
> needlessly pedantic ?
> sci-astronomy -> sci-astro
> sci-biology -> sci-bio
> sci-calculators -> sci-calc
> sci-chemistry -> sci-chem

To native speakers these abbrevs may be crystal clear, to foreigners 
they are muddier.  I much prefer whole words.

Benno
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4659 bytes --]

maillog: 17/03/2005-01:58:07(-0800): Robin H. Johnson types
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:33:12PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > I've been suggesting renaming packages appropriately, but the idea's
> > been shot down with 'We use upstream names' a few times already.
> One unavoidable problem that will come up as a result of renaming
> binaries to avoid collisions, is that if some other package expects them
> by a specific name, it will have to be patched as well (I've seen a
> Makefile that used dev-util/par).

I guess we are talking about slightly different things here. I was
suggesting renaming packages, as in "app-text/par" becoming
"app-text/par-formatter". I never suggested anything about the names of
the binaries, because they have nothing to do with the flatness (or
multilevelness, multicategoriness) of the tree.

This thing about a "Makefile" that uses "dev-util/par" -- I don't get
it.  Did you mean that a Makefile expected /usr/bin/par? That's beyound
my point anyway.

The point that I am making (I think it was clear enough, but why not
state it again) is:

- There is nothing bad in renaming packages, when the short upstream
  names collide.
  
I tried to illustrate it with:

- If installed files are being renamed in order to avoid collisions,
  there is nothing bad in renaming packages to avoid package name
  clashes as well.

The collisions simply helped me prove my point. If Gentoo is going to
call "par" -- the command, not by its upstream name which is
/usr/bin/par but /usr/bin/par-formatter instead, then why should it
insist on calling its package app-text/par and not
app-text/par-formatter? (this is only for illustration).

> > Still, I cannot restrain myself from hacking down your example from
> > above. It's just too good an oportunity to miss. :)
> Congratulations, you've found a bug.
> We keep trying to squash the critters, but they proliferate like crazy.

Oh, it is not a mere bug. It is an *opportunity*! app-text/par is just
begging to be renamed to app-text/par-formatter. If enough devs get
convinced and do that, I'll have my precedent to refer to, when nagging
you about all other duplicate names. And in the end, we get a great flat
tree, with multiple categories and no more 'I am gonna move some stuff
from foo-bar to foo-gaz and break the tree for you', moving directories
in CVS, breaking users' overlays, etc.

> Package collisions like this are actually really hard to detect in an
> automated fashion (without installing every package you want to test).
> We don't have any comprehensive database of the files that a package
> installs (at least that I'm aware of). rpmfind and other databases
> exist for other distros (packages.debian.org has this functionality
> too). This data would probably come up as a by-product of a build
> tinderbox (inside a Xen instance maybe?).

http://www.gentoo-stats.org/ has the information. The database is still
poor, but it will hopefully improve. It had nothing about the "par"s for
example, hence the need to read the ebuilds, which luckily were pretty
clear.

> [snip bug data]
> Would you mind copying this into a bug report, for the appropriate
> maintainers? (they might not be reading this thread)

Alright. Bug #85610 if anyone feels like CC-ing the maintainers.

> > Fix these collisions, and I'll tell you how to fix the problem with
> > their names.
> Actually, we are at somewhat of a chicken and egg problem, as it makes
> it a reasonable amount of sense for the non-colliding package name to
> reflect the name of the binary. I think it would be worthwhile to see if
> there is any sane naming convention other flat-namespace distributions
> have adopted for a package name with collisions, and try to stick to any
> existing name scheme.

I've looked into it (when I was raising the issue before).
Unfortunately, the other distros simply do not have the colliding
packages. Searching for "par" on rpmfind.net found the different rpms
for different distros, but not both app-{arch,text}/par for the same
distro.

> (See for example 'aggregate' and 'aggregate-flim', both packages are
> known as 'aggregate' by upstream - they were developed independently,
> without any knowledge that the other exists. They do roughly the same
> thing, in two very different ways, but still have a slight
> non-overlapping featureset).

-- 
|    Georgi Georgiev   |  Lucas' Law: Good will always win, because    |
|     chutz@gg3.net    |  evil hires the _stupid_ engineers.           |
|   +81(90)6266-1163   |                                               |

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Stephen P. Becker]

Andrew D. Fant wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | is it just me or does it seem redundant to have 'sciences' at the end
> of a
> | sci-* category ?  wouldnt it make more sense as just 'sci-geo' ?
> 
> Would sci-geo be geography or geology or geosciences?
> 
> Andy
> 
> 

I just figure I should throw my two cents into this thread.  Looking at 
the packages in app-geosciences, I have a hard time seeing why the 
category exists at all.  Two of the packages are meteorology, which is 
definitely a big stretch.  I'm not sure you'll find very many university 
or college geoscience departments around the country that have a 
meteorology major for example.

A third package is for making maps, called GMT, which can have numerous 
applications (including geosciences), but doesn't *have* to be 
geoscience specific.  I quote from their homepage, "Most users of GMT 
are Earth scientists, but there are apparently no limits to the kind of 
applications that may benefit from GMT: We know GMT is used in medical 
research, engineering, physics, mathematics, social and biological 
sciences, and by geographers, fisheries institutes, oil companies, and a 
wide range of government agencies."  That said, I could live with this 
package staying in app-geosciences.

Finally, the GIS program, called grass, which is very useful in 
geosciences as well, also doesn't have to be geoscience specific.  In 
fact, GIS stands for "geographic information system".  This could also 
stay in app-geosciences.

So, by my count, that is two packages which you could make a case for 
staying in this category, which is silly.  Do we really need a whole 
category for two ebuilds?  Anyway, what I mean by all of this is that 
yes, sci-geo would be more ambiguous, but it would be a hell of a lot 
better than the current name since it would branch out over more 
subjects...sci-geosciences is pretty specific.  I would expect to find 
geochemical modeling software (like GEMS for aqueous geochemistry: 
http://les.web.psi.ch/Software/GEMS-PSI/index.html, and MELTS for 
magmatic systems: http://penmelts.ess.washington.edu/index.html), 
seismic data processing software (http://chez.mana.pf/~ldg/), etc in 
this category, and none of that exists.  Note that I'm not whining or 
complaining that software like this isn't in portage, just that it is 
the sort of thing I (being a geologist) would expect to see in a 
category called app-geosciences.

Steve

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Olivier Fisette]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 701 bytes --]

On Thursday, 17 March, 2005 09:29 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I just figure I should throw my two cents into this thread. 
> Looking at the packages in app-geosciences, I have a hard time
> seeing why the category exists at all. 

I agree. Even if these four packages are appropriate for 
"sci-geosciences" (IMO), four is not enough for a category (by 
far). When I split "app-sci", I wanted to throw all geoscience 
packages in "sci-misc". I added "sci-geosciences" only because 
nerdboy insinsted on having a category for these packages. At 
the time, he said the category would grow quickly since he was 
working on many new packages.

-- 
Olivier Fisette
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Olivier Fisette]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1050 bytes --]

On Thursday, 17 March, 2005 12:34 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont mind doing it ... plus i now have you bound saying it's
> ok ! -mike

I really will not stop you. ;-)

But as far as I can see, a great majority of users and devs like 
having full names for the sci categories. I know Gentoo is not a 
democracy, but I wonder why go against the majority on this 
trivial matter, considering it involves quite a bit of work.

If you do it, you will probably want to keep some full names 
anyway. "sci-ee" or "sci-elec" is really not clear enough. So 
you will end up mixing full names and acronyms. No big deal, but 
still a bit less elegant.

If I had to change the sci categories right now, I would only 
rename "sci-mathematics" to "sci-math" and remove 
"sci-geosciences" completely, moving all its packages in 
"sci-misc". That way all the obvious stuff would have short 
names (libs, math, misc). How does that sound to you? nerdboy, 
would that be Ok with you?

Cheers,

-- 
Olivier Fisette
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Stephen P. Becker]

Olivier Fisette wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 March, 2005 09:29 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> 
>>I just figure I should throw my two cents into this thread. 
>>Looking at the packages in app-geosciences, I have a hard time
>>seeing why the category exists at all. 
> 
> 
> I agree. Even if these four packages are appropriate for 
> "sci-geosciences" (IMO), four is not enough for a category (by 
> far). When I split "app-sci", I wanted to throw all geoscience 
> packages in "sci-misc". I added "sci-geosciences" only because 
> nerdboy insinsted on having a category for these packages. At 
> the time, he said the category would grow quickly since he was 
> working on many new packages.
> 

Well, I think that there are applications out there that are appropriate 
for an app-geo category, just that they aren't in portage yet.  In fact, 
I've been pondering creating and maintaining ebuilds for a couple of the 
programs I mentioned in my previous email.  I just haven't had the time 
recently to consider it.  I'm barely keeping up with stuff that needs to 
be done in the mips herd as it is.

If nerdboy has lots of packages he is working on that are appropriate, 
then I don't see why the category can't stay.  If those are on hold, 
then as you said, the category should go away.

Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 415 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:18:39 -0500 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
| name ?

Uh, no. See, we have categories to avoid this problem. Upstream naming
takes priority.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:18:39 -0500 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
> | name ?
> 
> Uh, no. See, we have categories to avoid this problem. Upstream naming
> takes priority.

If thats the case, why is Firefox called mozilla-firefox ? I think upstream
naming is important, but it shouldn't be the #1 reason why you can't name it
something else to avoid conflict. Granted yes, thats why we have categories, but
having to add app-admin/sudo is a PITA to do every time.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operational Manager

---
Public GPG key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Jason Wever]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 842 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Lance Albertson wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:18:39 -0500 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>> | Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
>> | name ?
>>
>> Uh, no. See, we have categories to avoid this problem. Upstream naming
>> takes priority.
>
> If thats the case, why is Firefox called mozilla-firefox ?

Probably because the application calls itself Mozilla Firefox (see title 
bar and Help > About Mozilla Firefox in the menu) :)

Cheers,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCOeb6dKvgdVioq28RAk9LAKC4XYjC8yatsGqpzWc1Qnq7suwwUACglbSq
RvsFaHMnus7afqCzbdcENgQ=
=YgMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

Vapier wrote:[Thu Mar 17 2005, 12:33:59AM EST]
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 12:18 am, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> > Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
> > name ?
> 
> if we do it's news to me

There was once such a rule, in the drobbins days, along with the rule
stating that capital letters weren't allowed in package names.  Both
rules were mostly ignored, for mostly good reasons, so they faded into
non-existence.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1110 bytes --]

Vapier wrote:[Thu Mar 17 2005, 12:34:51AM EST]
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 11:31 pm, Olivier Fisette wrote:
> > After GLEP 34 is implemented, descriptions will be available for the
> > categories so clear category names will be a bit less important. If you
> > want all packages in sci-* moved again, though, I think you will have to do
> > it yourself. And unless epkgmove has improved since I last used it, this
> > will be boring and error prone. :(
> 
> i dont mind doing it ... plus i now have you bound saying it's ok !

I don't personally care about anything in those categories, but this
is a seriously pointless exercise with annoying results: A consequence
of using CVS is that the cvs logs don't follow name changes, so it's
necessary to find the older directories in the Attic to extract the
old logs.

Since there's no reason other than "vapier can't spell" to change
these category names, and some people have expressed that they prefer
the unambiguity of the present names... could we leave them alone
please?

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 933 bytes --]

maillog: 17/03/2005-13:22:15(-0700): Jason Wever types
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Lance Albertson wrote:
> 
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:18:39 -0500 Olivier Cr�te <tester@gentoo.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> | Don't we already have rules that forbid two packages having the same
> >> | name ?
> >>
> >> Uh, no. See, we have categories to avoid this problem. Upstream naming
> >> takes priority.
> >
> > If thats the case, why is Firefox called mozilla-firefox ?
> 
> Probably because the application calls itself Mozilla Firefox (see title 
> bar and Help > About Mozilla Firefox in the menu) :)

So how come I cannot install it by typing

emerge "Mozilla Firefox"

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () Blessed are the forgetful: for they get      ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    () the better even of their blunders. --        ()
()  +81(90)6266-1163   () Nietzsche                                    ()

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aron Griffis wrote:
> There was once such a rule, in the drobbins days, along with the rule
> stating that capital letters weren't allowed in package names.  Both
> rules were mostly ignored, for mostly good reasons, so they faded into
> non-existence.

Actually, as for the latter ...

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1#doc_chap2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCOlN7XVaO67S1rtsRAgqmAJ9I4Wd8BwfQkt2I/LkRCyTiW7g67ACg4uqP
vShQ6TNW1VUM2wFsELf5sx0=
=ZDMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant?

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> - There is nothing bad in renaming packages, when the short upstream
>   names collide.

Yes, there is. You'll likely have to patch the package all over the
place where it uses its name to refer to itself. This patching will
always need to be ported to new version and maintained forever.

Every package with duplicate names may not require this, but some
(perhaps many) will.

Sounds like a great use of time to me, rather than using a solution that
already exists.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCOlQJXVaO67S1rtsRAq07AJkBPMpSs1kX3trdZq2ra8ot+iFDlwCghRbB
zUf5Fqn9dtOwJ6u1P8RezfA=
=cDPw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] category sci-geosciences redundant ?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 10:02 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:

> So how come I cannot install it by typing
> 
> emerge "Mozilla Firefox"


Because spaces are not allowed as separators in package names.  For
fairly good reasons.

And the default policy is "no capital letters"   (unless we are forced
to due to perl being bonked in the head ;)



//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


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