Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets?

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2263 bytes --]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:21:29 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problems with PROPERTIES=set remain exactly the same as they
> > were when it was first proposed.
> 
> Which is?
> No, "been there, done that, won't work" is not sufficient. Please
> elaborate.

You can find and read the original discussion as well as I can. No
point in going over exactly the same material all over again since the
design hasn't been updated since.

> > Uh, I don't see how that's in any way difficult to maintain.
> 
> No, it's not difficult, it's pain in ass to keep a hundred files with
> a few thousands lines each up2date with tree changes (pkgmove, cvs
> remove). Yes, it could be automated by some crafty cvs hook on
> server. However cvs hooks should be the last resort and not a tool to
> deal with consequences of broken design.

If that were true, you'd be doing the same thing for package.mask...
*shrug* If you really think it's that bad, though, go with Brian's
proposal, and whilst you're at it, make package.mask and all those
other profile files that contain long lists of package names be created
the same way.

> > > Tag is a property or attribute of package
> > That one's highly debatable.
> 
> It's not debatable for those familiar with object oriented design
> concept.

Clearly it is. Have a look at posts in this thread. Some people insist
that tags are properties of ebuilds, some that they're properties of
packages, some that they're repository-level properties, and some that
they're external, user-level properties. 

For that matter, ebuilds aren't object oriented.

> > Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for
> > decades then.
> 
> Indeed, with sets in bash (ebuild) format.

No point, just like there's no point in package.mask being an ebuild.

> > Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already
> > established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are
> > anyway.
> 
> I don't know what's everyone's idea behind the tag, I refer to:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)

Sure, and that's sufficiently vague that all sorts of completely
different ideas could be called tags.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]