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 ) id 1JNFwp-0005lB-DB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:14:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8CB9E04FE; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.genone.homeip.net (dslb-082-083-031-195.pools.arcor-ip.net [82.83.31.195]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D52E04FE for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.genone.homeip.net (Postfix, from userid 460) id D2D872811D; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:13:45 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8-gr0-genone_0.7 (2007-02-13) on lyta.genone.homeip.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=7.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8-gr0-genone_0.7 Received: from sheridan (sheridan [192.168.0.40]) by mail.genone.homeip.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D4DAE28112 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:13:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:12:05 +0100 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new portage categories Message-Id: <20080208001205.8a66ffaf.genone@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <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> <20080207205643.GA27711@comet.science.oregonstate.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i686-pc-mingw32) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 605a5c93-d701-4468-a644-5e195f3a6583 X-Archives-Hash: d73b59decaa11cac7a346d6f08bf19a2 On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:56:43 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 15:12 Wed 06 Feb , Alec Warner wrote: > > On 2/4/08, Jonas Bernoulli wrote: > > > On 2/4/08, Donnie Berkholz 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. That only works for the user interface, not so good for depend strings, config files and pretty much everything else. Marius -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list