From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17F61387FD for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48F36E0C1E; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com (mail-ee0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE3AE0C17 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id t10so4472729eei.33 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:47:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Z13HC2uwa7ffca61Ie00xrHwXgOhFW7AgiOVMYdpRgg=; b=dHXp63Ld1mFtywfYj4IJiWcjCH2wFZe/PrrPauQPeTsTy7VG5pEr+AulnLFSNK17FN bTTV1MlblA/HpS8lLDtrWW3S9W7Lmz3KDidDCUber6rZ47pPpJTVBNgzf1Zh0LW53m8G IKMiUBe2ODsP8tkOmQ6ervyhVpCDU99qGDIl/dDAIt8kui/6jimwmo2IFNfeJfuUcGB3 32V+gB+MNRk01v/oRcNYlm4BxcS1blr9Bq9LIuNSsKRXxa7yNUM/vaFYvCwMMIsMNUna Z+47gunqBRZpBMpZHbo3ke+lwefuOlUVFRZIh5GyCyUl8QuujliCt1y0jCuD9tJELyaM xwzQ== X-Received: by 10.15.10.3 with SMTP id f3mr11556018eet.1.1396036029410; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:47:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 10.15.49.5 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:46:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140328171427.57c24f02@googlemail.com> References: <20140323154609.1625d525@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140324123619.5fca27ee@deathstar> <20140324152512.45516d0a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140325080308.09d349bc@deathstar> <20140325183145.60dc07e2@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140327035347.6434671a@gentoo.org> <20140328171427.57c24f02@googlemail.com> From: Wyatt Epp Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2b50ceca-7ad0-4eeb-a419-9d4df2a7123b X-Archives-Hash: 21040ae99036d52c1ee1344708070d72 On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 > yac wrote: >> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties >> of categories and tags. > > You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that they > didn't originally represent. No one's redefining anything. You seem awfully fixated on the history that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really matter in this context. Regardless of any of that, people can and _do_ attempt to use categories as a rudimentary method of attempting to search for packages. As you and several others have so eloquently pointed out, that's not their "purpose". Concurrently, from the other direction, myself and several others have noted that they're thoroughly inadequate for that anyway. That's why this topic keeps coming up and why this (work-in-progress) GLEP exists in the first place. > From a package mangler perspective, > categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're fundamentally > part of a package's name. > >From that standpoint, they're even less adequate for lookup; encoding metadata in names has never turned out well for anyone. Cheers, Wyatt