From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Qar1g-0003Rs-KX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:13:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C807C1C105; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com (mail-fx0-f52.google.com [209.85.161.52]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBF71C083 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so1086792fxd.11 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=k00H9Sn/KFXwT4bvDkxmMX7EM2GIZmJNcxM98f9vXuc=; b=nER4tbFO7YvsYuhiqU1BWLXm6W8WqaGVxa9qfF+eGS0HFiwzPI3dEN8FzjP2h9IXST y/cnGGPa1ixuNyTDkr2/yhDDDPnHa6JTI72lF/2Uaf3SZ68rJ4I9OVdnnjqyDIT1j1NH YO7nb2GlLhX9naZU1NHF85QtSdP3zvPDSOmHY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=n5SbbK2y0XRzjsKAXn6PedKPmv3Ekj7zoFSIcwXdtn7uLMaTuZQgHrXnbFb9qPD5ql 9VQQQmzVBBSkpQcprrWWCRa11tflZ3AQkp+00PnJNzUIfswlzdd1OnEYXLYJrZSm5c9g jmsHTodDsKYmd7T2jZCedwvUtjLdxP/F7Nt3Q= Received: by 10.223.69.83 with SMTP id y19mr5996185fai.108.1309101172275; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lebrodyl.localnet (89-78-62-193.dynamic.chello.pl [89.78.62.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j23sm1130839fai.15.2011.06.26.08.12.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Maciej Mrozowski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> 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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2065022.j9xgQqLhds"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106261712.27665.reavertm@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 188858ffed97ad3f797c7ee413fb22ea --nextPart2065022.j9xgQqLhds Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=3Dset? https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D272488 It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format every= =20 time it's bought up? > First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the > lines of: >=20 > eapi =3D 4 > description =3D Monkeys >=20 > dev-monkey/howler > dev-monkey/spider >=20 > >=3Ddev-monkey/spanky-2.0 >=20 > dev-monkey/squirrel >=20 > where eapi has to be on the first line. >=20 > Second, make a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, > monkeys-tag etc. I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain. Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least two=20 tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain that. Also those files cannot be generated since there needs to be some original= =20 source of tags information to generate such 'sets' from. I don't need to remind one needs to keep those files synchronized with tree= =20 changes (package renames, removals) while tags in metadata.xml automaticall= y=20 ravel with package. Tag is a property or attribute of package and should be implemented as=20 additional package information, metadata.xml is the most natural choice. > Third, make tools that allow browsing, searching etc able to list > things by tag (or sets in general). >=20 > Advantages: dead easy to implement, backwards compatible, we need sets > anyway. PROPERTIES=3Dset have the same advantages - they can also be pulled within= =20 dependency tree by other packages. > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, > wikis and web 2.0. Using already proven technologies and tools is barely disadvantage. I think= =20 last thing we need is yet another obscure format nothing widely usable=20 understands. Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not mix=20 unrelated things. =2D-=20 regards MM --nextPart2065022.j9xgQqLhds Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk4HTFsACgkQFuHa/bHpVds0ZQCfUVcDB3tCFpmBoW1GDrI0y0sR dkYAoJlS1yofcBI2PowrkDy8JFT3FoxZ =tDAS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2065022.j9xgQqLhds--