From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outmx005.isp.belgacom.be (outmx005.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.2.102]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j55GYXHO018608 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:34:34 GMT Received: from outmx005.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outmx005.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with ESMTP id j55GYb9G022714 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:34:37 +0200 (envelope-from ) Received: from [192.168.8.2] (185-1.241.81.adsl.skynet.be [81.241.1.185]) by outmx005.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with ESMTP id j55GYaIU022701 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:34:36 +0200 (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <42A32997.3010502@sdf-eu.org> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:34:31 +0200 From: Jonas Geiregat User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050520) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category References: <200506051622.24240@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <1117985871.30949.13.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1117985871.30949.13.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 0c7f0429-aadd-4bff-857d-6ca9ed00cc69 X-Archives-Hash: 1b9a1bbaf93a01906d351209064df6c6 Ned Ludd wrote: >On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > >>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way >>I ever seen. >>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, >>pam_smb in net-misc and so on. >> >>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with >>implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed. >> >>Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I >>think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such >>a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, >>obv.).. >> >>Comments? >> >> > >Diego: >This is not directed at you solely but expresses my general feelings on >the topic of ever moving packages. > >I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of >time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody. >Invalidates binary package trees. It places stress on rsync servers. It >makes people have to rewrite rsync_exclude files. Makes it harder for >scripts that interact with portage. And in the end really gains us next >to nothing. Please stop moving stuff around for cosmetic reasons. I see >far to many threads about changing stuff. No real valuable work ever >gets done. Stuff simply just gets shifted around somebody can think of a >new way to categorize existing data. > > > I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user. To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a dev-scheme directory. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list