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 1QbRhh-0007W3-1R for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:23:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E16F1C158; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f67.google.com (mail-ww0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7859C1C137 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so879365wwe.10 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:22:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=v2HIZdc9lHWh6IlnwS3FTLLo2e7PugaQMnlFrXt54Vk=; b=dUXxNBdURZmI2LizQkf2tKcdRur8UBuuc/7aBJ5wG2n08ZHjHCDc8iaLlMezHwB/RE Pg0TF4O8+26qhGbNTDg9KuQm2ZV+Np14oijBqtgk+LIzGsffQCsLXgXF1Q2eY6jzSaNT j4/keXUxebg5QmhLq8Q3++4snTSkpPq+0icbc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=mPivGoK6RomjJ4GBZuA/dH4vgNvqaMyTglzBLiPxlkGy0jErm8S4RvV1dh23QjQ3e4 FCZyiuN48Kbt8iROa5GKQ1mY34T7T8SoW5x1wy2pAjLKa3m6D721c6G1g7fU0D+6h6Es PWws4Ph51aBefC5dm44quRl/QT6i293bNnxns= Received: by 10.227.173.66 with SMTP id o2mr6226171wbz.17.1309242121656; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc1-broo4-0-0-cust780.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com [86.4.215.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gf6sm4591268wbb.58.2011.06.27.23.22.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:19:26 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? Message-ID: <20110628071926.1105e93f@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <201106272021.29883.reavertm@gmail.com> References: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> <201106261712.27665.reavertm@gmail.com> <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> <201106272021.29883.reavertm@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/WrW3upzpk_MYVpLKALjUK/d"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 515a068c3d081130b234b161ec080116 --Sig_/WrW3upzpk_MYVpLKALjUK/d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:21:29 +0200 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > The problems with PROPERTIES=3Dset remain exactly the same as they > > were when it was first proposed. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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.=20 For that matter, ebuilds aren't object oriented. > > Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for > > decades then. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I don't know what's everyone's idea behind the tag, I refer to: >=20 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata) Sure, and that's sufficiently vague that all sorts of completely different ideas could be called tags. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/WrW3upzpk_MYVpLKALjUK/d Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4JcnEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhF9twCeJP1BpGA8YfrEqHETyzQdd+aZ R7EAoJA/QBr/eHXwtDDJgKsvN2NqHY/q =NTu2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/WrW3upzpk_MYVpLKALjUK/d--