From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-29351-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1JNDnb-0006XV-7n
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:56:47 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7217FE0353;
	Thu,  7 Feb 2008 20:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470ADE0353
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu,  7 Feb 2008 20:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gentoo.org (xray.science.oregonstate.edu [128.193.220.51])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33E265B95
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu,  7 Feb 2008 20:56:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:56:43 -0800
From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories
Message-ID: <20080207205643.GA27711@comet.science.oregonstate.edu>
References: <92e3e00f0802040935j5414a163y3455c1e0c3cd7422@mail.gmail.com> <20080204184137.GA3887@comet.science.oregonstate.edu> <92e3e00f0802041111m3d838158gd9b6fbd7f7818d83@mail.gmail.com> <20080204200616.GB3887@comet.science.oregonstate.edu> <92e3e00f0802041223j582f93bbq7cbb64bd42deb9f2@mail.gmail.com> <b41005390802061512w6a3f83abmd12a1f5d0522bccc@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b41005390802061512w6a3f83abmd12a1f5d0522bccc@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
X-Archives-Salt: d43db366-58a4-4336-abf2-91af29ab5458
X-Archives-Hash: c90b68811b61dc9341688b6503eb9cc6

On 15:12 Wed 06 Feb     , Alec Warner wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoulli.cc> wrote:
> > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> 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