From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C50B0139694 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8FC921C1D3; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x241.google.com (mail-qt0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0ECA21C06C for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x241.google.com with SMTP id x58so3907758qtc.2 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=X0bPV4SE1gBOtdfYhmkT7haieUy0YkWDKM+/HQIC/n8=; b=t1sEbOcb0PDGGMMQGlZIvPPHf9Up/g6S9TTsV09tifK0dR/y0fzxf0PneTBsdWkHal GW7y2KPSiUDU3oI67DAw8F6t1/s6Co//NJ3guqrJorCjWX+hCik07OL5nYfiDZUjDhHs FgqlRP9xu8safheqHZy2oto9He7HwZFLmslqn78nguSQpG5thVZxkqsKMmWyAZkVkp7D S30dkPdrE3xgG70gRE4mzwtzaqZAiq5TDqW9gt/24JJ3CIvZojLOSQ6oJM+CbdNyAXGu oA8q/RKCZG+LWtdipflswrk33ZcnmdlNPP0L3htmlzWDrj/Kfo7gpYjlwT/4j2G74uNP YvTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=X0bPV4SE1gBOtdfYhmkT7haieUy0YkWDKM+/HQIC/n8=; b=p98hSVI9CsELhtChrsetXlI6G4HMJBWkgagz8PAh7lTbtrQCZTqpgirwhQ/8JNIprA RIQLGvd1jOQ2rJZBSMfV23nzjLK1xVee3MgUP8DqCwF3V5GXyAZbsgXCOST+W8y6N6Nz CScxp16BdODI82as87ew49nuu6Rvc0L7EeBApZA8C/5VoI9dB87ZGXuCTnvx7tJQjJ2i +qHEbTW3rzQP4rV/BhnfnXe6lmC/eF8hucrR5jvuToMNzqfYb6X/Gtoev4AY7bvRvgRM UC6NQ22eaC96ozxCe6lXTv35VgY0TNylkn3WMwuz34CRwgOm6PAQgz1XgaxCUG2irHEJ If6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxY0ynhPQAbu4o0Y6WwBHE52Ir3T+oySas2q3P75xkl00otzhpw hA+d7GbIZolGL1Zh X-Received: by 10.55.78.67 with SMTP id c64mr7497980qkb.23.1497540938695; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from whubbs1.gaikai.biz ([100.42.103.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m22sm286796qkl.49.2017.06.15.08.35.37 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 10348 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:35:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:35:36 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: new category, app-containers Message-ID: <20170615153536.GA10164@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170614160857.GA29303@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <655b776f-6c1d-2f3b-a709-6d179e6d68fd@gentoo.org> 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; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="17pEHd4RhPHOinZp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <655b776f-6c1d-2f3b-a709-6d179e6d68fd@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Archives-Salt: 3a0e38e7-3ced-4f56-ae41-0f2962490c57 X-Archives-Hash: 996267811b0ec246a4f4b34d6c14ee8f --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:42:33AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 06/14/2017 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > Is it time to start thinking about an app-containers category? > > If so, is it ok for me to start an app-containers category with these > > packages then we can look into moving other packages to it? >=20 > Personally I don't see much value in introducing a new category at this > point. Package moves always introduce a certain degree of complexity > (e.g requiring maintainers in main tree and other repositories to update > dependency specifications), is there really value from introducing this > category vs the existing one? in the general case I'd like to see less > categories rather than more. In the main tree, imo, updating the dependencies should be handled by the person doing the package move, so it shouldn't affect other maintainers. As far as overlays go, it is true that overlay maintainers might have to=20 adjust things, but overlay maintainers are on their own anyway. I see categories as a way to classify packages. If a category is too broad more categories should be created if possible. I can think of two other categories in the tree that may be able to be cleaned up in the future, but it would mean more categories. William --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCWUKpQwAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OH0+AKCV2BC1wI7scxLnHfhYsrVRTM1Q+ACgvSk84kPQUMFlCdkhyn5SNc0LnkQ= =1dkD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--