On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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=set?
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488
> 
> It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format
> every time it's bought up?

The problems with PROPERTIES=set remain exactly the same as they were
when it was first proposed.

> I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain.
> Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least
> two tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain
> that.

Uh, I don't see how that's in any way difficult to maintain.

> Tag is a property or attribute of package

That one's highly debatable.

> PROPERTIES=set have the same advantages - they can also be pulled
> within dependency tree by other packages.

Yes, but PROPERTIES=set has all of the problems it had when it was
first proposed, and is the wrong way to implement sets.

> > 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 last thing we need is yet another obscure format nothing widely
> usable understands.

Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for
decades then.

> Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not
> mix unrelated things.

Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already
established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are anyway.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh