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 1JNIZ7-0000Pj-WC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:02:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C811E0474; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 02:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDE9E0474 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 02:02:07 +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 7D9B965E2F for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 02:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:02:08 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] category ambiguity Message-ID: <20080208020207.GK27711@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> <20080208001205.8a66ffaf.genone@gentoo.org> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080208001205.8a66ffaf.genone@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 743c9f41-9bc1-427d-8fc1-617f30884bcd X-Archives-Hash: 9d5ee863f9d65b985d94e996db08c189 On 00:12 Fri 08 Feb , Marius Mauch wrote: > 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. I don't think categories are the best way of resolving ambiguities, because they don't uniquely identify a package. One could imagine two packages in the same category with the same name (for example, two Python modules that do drastically different things but would go in dev-python). I'm not sure what the best way is, but I don't think it's categories. Perhaps some sort of UUID for packages? You could treat unique tags like categories, but those could also be duplicated. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list