Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Addition of a new field <remote-id type="debian"> to metadata.xml

[Andrey Utkin <andrey_utkin@fastmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:58:28 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > and that's a small one. I guess we could avoid this if you restricted
> > those remotes to the source package used to build them all.
> 
> I think in the event they're a form of conventional 
> 
>   foo
>   foo-dev
>   foo-dbg
> 
> etc, under the knowledge that those things can't possibly map to other
> gentoo packages, we should codify only the first of those, and then have
> it placed on the iteroperating code to make logical inferences from
> that.
> 
> "foo-dev" in a search query would map to "foo" if no "foo-dev" existed.
> 
> But yeah, lots of complexity there.
> 
> That's why I'd just say those facets shouldn't really be mapped
> explicitly.
> 
> The general pattern being:
> 
>  "If a debian id can be conjugated from another debian id by guessing
> with a generic algorithm, only index the former"

It is common for debian package names contain version numbers, besides
other ugliness:

https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libavcodec&searchon=names&suite=stable&section=all

You have searched for packages that names contain libavcodec in suite(s)
stable, all sections, and all architectures. Found 4 matching packages.
Package libavcodec-dev
Package libavcodec-extra
Package libavcodec-extra-56
Package libavcodec56

Obviously numbered package name libavcodec56 can be an attribute of
exact ebuild, but not of a Gentoo package.

With this ugliness of Debian packages naming, I'm afraid the proposed
change won't take off.