Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Conary

[Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Friday 22 October 2004 15:11, John Nilsson wrote:
> Why not express the dependency as an RDF graph? A dependency statement
> would be a complete uri. This would also remove the need to maintain a
> single package namespace.

The problem is absolutely not with the namespace. There are 2 ways of 
namespaces, one is where every party uses it's own namespace, so 
excluding overlaps, but also taking away the advantages of other people's 
work. AND this will highly likely lead to overlapping files as there is 
overlap in the upstream packages.

The other way is where the namespaces are looser. In this case one package 
has one namespace. This however does not work either, because it moves 
the problem to inside the package, where your package A does not work 
with my dependant package C, because your package A is different than my 
package B, while A and B are supposed to be the same package.

In short, the only way to guarantee that this doesn't happen is to have a 
central tree that has a minimum quality level.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]