From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LULPg-0003XU-Ei for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:34:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2016DE0663; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com (mail-bw0-f12.google.com [209.85.218.12]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78A0E0663 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:34:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so2007143bwz.10 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:34:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fnoePVsIgnBSf7cJrNzrkhFcvo8N8oXrAGjRmXNeKWw=; b=N7a+pLqUUEa91IgTbe+a6oiaKytLEd2E+/vgVSXil10b3sxaiOrssOrY7POwrVYrMn +prRGMZj8IaI8J3RKs+hNjQpkMIyXL1x+Ez4fnLYPg5DLe1XETeXKHmBT115YJHpQM9a chnbsttnx2tZGupYsti0UoMJrNBVf7V7sUqpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=b3phXalQ0NHwP0lDK0r1cQZF8zXWGE3n+ZKAkreyjXbJQRhs11vs0woMlXvYMHf4a8 LubUaD74jt1OuGijHXwlRXtXVM+Ii2OYz1WKUPg4/4r9XaWiAlLUsTEh5ncNcvTkUeig ZDKvxnSUhxeLy6Iot/KpQ79abF5KOe1UNwLQw= 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 Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com Received: by 10.181.139.4 with SMTP id r4mr1506367bkn.89.1233668040232; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:34:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200902031047.30989.george@gentoo.org> References: <84250c9c0902010932m539beba1v19fac18fde4569d9@mail.gmail.com> <200902022310.27612.reavertm@poczta.fm> <4987EDD5.8090009@gentoo.org> <200902031047.30989.george@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:34:00 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1f6c53cc38d41959 Message-ID: <7c612fc60902030534t3f64ef48wb0fa0968159710e8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new categories: From: Denis Dupeyron To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b94ca83d-53ae-4460-b9fe-690b33bbb0ef X-Archives-Hash: 704051535e9a4e4d7d1ffa3dea84729c On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:47 AM, George Shapovalov wrote: > Besides, in my opinion, the ability to see "what's there" in at least > minimally categorized way without having to resort to using some special > tools or going to some website is worht something. In this vain I was > proposing going the opposite direction - to allow arbitrary nesting of > categories, like going sci-math -> sci/math and deeper (then packages would > naturally be specified by "FQEN" - fully qualified ebuild names). Its not > like tree walker would be the most complex part of code in portage.. Actually we'd want both tags and nesting. They don't address the same issue. Arbitrary nesting of categories allows better management and storing of ebuilds. It could also allow a meta-ebuild to depend on a whole subcategory to ease maintenance of said meta-ebuild. It's more a developer's feature. Tags allow ebuilds to appear as being pertinent to more (sub-)categories than just the one they're stored into. It may help some of us locate packages they need in a better and/or faster way. It's more of a user's feature. Denis.