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 1QbOxD-0000P4-LI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:27:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EE081C02D; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pw0-f53.google.com (mail-pw0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D35B1C021 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwi16 with SMTP id 16so3813287pwi.40 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=zxFfFCqIkS2o0drVLAASVH6uEKX0Ml8rC958wu2mtEY=; b=J6yXxZzS4c7CRISLxv3M7a135+xXL4N8Wk13W5Y4hbviwDjP+rN6GO0ZJvx0OFttpM Tb7cUiVjiAMWa2yJdCJlYiqeE+uHbtaWwHhJDwhd4FsmvTKGRs7Hv3Xk+XHQaZ2W0zAq 38MHavxSmriPVcvqPj1Qqj6Zr9vocANpoiAWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=aWVtqP4+hIesOFIaMOQjbexTtduK3wx7ONncwU9IylrmvP28oMHx9ZoAh2jdE1xL3m Zbx/wOMhS7TlALTbfQOYmiSRrdCN0sqtCHfBVLZtaOJRjwlT7FMcfcEZPMhh99B4d3X/ iewKp/fNz4sR55zxX2AIs2k2ulFxUsqUzW5k0= Received: by 10.68.66.101 with SMTP id e5mr3295401pbt.239.1309231573396; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (c-76-103-93-73.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.103.93.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d1sm4785949pbj.8.2011.06.27.20.26.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:26:29 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? Message-ID: <20110628032629.GA9911@localhost> References: <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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 66d40ec2367a0c9d588c45358978867d On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:02:57AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > First, standardise sets. We probably want to go with a format along the > lines of: > > eapi = 4 > description = Monkeys > > dev-monkey/howler > dev-monkey/spider > >=dev-monkey/spanky-2.0 > dev-monkey/squirrel > > where eapi has to be on the first line. > > Second, make a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, > monkeys-tag etc. This is a bit inverted- tagging is fundamentally pkg specific. If we did as you proposed and I wanted to find out all tags/descriptions for a pkg, the PM would have to scan every tags file there. Additionally, as others have indicated, it sucks have this data tucked away in another chunk of the tree, away from where the package data actually is (in cat/pkg/*). > Advantages: dead easy to implement, backwards compatible, we need sets > anyway. > > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, > wikis and web 2.0. Counter proposal; use what you're proposing as a cache. metadata.xml is the proper place for this- we store use.local data there for example, and cache the results of it in profiles/use.local.desc. Via this vcs concerns are addressed, data locality is preserved, and multiple modes of lookup are sanely supported. Roughly, and this is definitely a rough sketch: tag1 tag2 tag2 tag3 awesomeness >From there, jammed into profiles, a master description list in 'tag: description' style format. Identifying the eapi is easy enough- just inspect the atom's that wind up in the tags list. Easy enough. Either way... thing everyone admits the current tree format has it's flaws; strikes me it's better to fit to the standards/conventions of the repo format as it is now. ~harring