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 1QbJHe-00027L-CA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:23:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DF811C159; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAB31C059 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so4513578wwf.10 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hadDHp7LckHj0Lr11SLNZB6phfJRnYyEEUrhtctTDac=; b=FvjM7HoBxId8M3EB3OxIZDqPx7bpI7IO3VE8C9iijgkNW8ctp1DPmUdp9hJbKlCZJY /rX0Lnauuz2Fbep4Fyk8fYJRk/gGAAn/vtE3ivWjLkGDyfmwsHJePIIr3C3XWs/m1yBx Lf2QhcdjH2VaoyKwOEdZn96/yWCs7wEmNGizA= 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=sYf9lknaL9zkMiE4DRL6Brv/HZfFRgLINt1Va/BxCzAGjHjbLTMIKwwQ5uHPo7sbMk N+rtjYaFJLgsWi5TKMXKX/QIY00151ZuaqEQzFzNn5CKzg81I/0I7obvOzQP2GhMDS1F Py2FegvODCrbVrEq9axVoMgmn15OPf2vSJbME= 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 Received: by 10.227.205.14 with SMTP id fo14mr5882513wbb.79.1309209798469; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.157.80 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> <201106261712.27665.reavertm@gmail.com> <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:23:18 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: p1lFf_en1zz-VnmxKwKT4mtaR6A Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: cfd73fcecee05c0011770279fb9b4c3f On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 16:23, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I too feel that tags should be distinct from sets, for a bunch of reason= s. >> >> Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the >> repository. =A0While I'm fine with having tags in the repository also, >> there is talk about giving users ways of supplying them as well. >> > Too late; /etc/portage/sets/ That wasn't what I was thinking of. Package masking is also something we carefully control in the repository but users can override it FOR THEIR OWN SYSTEMS. With tags I think that there were concepts floating around of letting anybody influence how packages are tagged. With some of the offline suggestions there is really nothing stopping anybody from making their own tagging solution outside of the repository. I could set up my own packages.g.o site and implement user-supplied tagging if I wanted to. That might not be a bad way to get this started, as somebody else in one of these threads seemed to be implying. Rich