On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:40:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:18:22 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Uh, as far as I recall, you've yet to come up with any technical
> | > explanation other than "it breaks one of my pet projects"... The
> | > gains of consistency and manageability far outweigh the minor
> | > inconvenience.
> | 
> | Scan back through the -dev archives.  We've been over this many
> times, | in excruciating detail, not that it ever makes any
> difference.
> 
> Well that's kinda the point. You haven't. Every time it's just the
> same vague "stuff breaks", without anything genuine value of stuff
> that isn't someone's pet poorly written toy to back it up.

Did you bother to search back through the archives?  I know I've posted
about this ad nauseum before.

Things that package moves cause:
1) Dependencies throughout the tree have to be updated
2) Current installations become inconsistent with respect to the tree
3) Binary packages go out-of-date
4) Increased sync load
5) Loss of history, unless the move is performed server-side (i.e.
extra work for infra)

fixpackages makes some effort to fix 3, but it's a band-aid solution.
For a start, it assumes the binary packages are all present however
binary packages may be archived off-line. fixpackages also takes a fair
amount of resource to run, resource that end-users don't need to commit
if we avoid unnecessary package moves.

4 & 5 would be mitigated when/if we move to SVN.

In my opinion moving packages from one category to another just causes
unnecessary disruption to the tree - all relevant dependencies
throughout the tree have to be altered, putting current installations
out-of-date with respect to it.

The key issue is that categories are semantically inadequate.  Deciding
which category a package fits into is subjective, frequently a package
fits into many categories yet the category system insists that a
package belong to one and only one category.

Usually these big package moves occur when people want to align herds
with categories, which is a waste of time - also it's daft as packages
can sensibly belong to more than one herd.  Unfortunately we see a lot
of it in the tree.

This week it's packages that have voip functionality that are being
moved to net-voip.  In six months time it'll be someone else wanting to
move all packages with IM functionality into net-im.  In herd-speak,
these packages could easily belong to both the voip and im herds,
should such exist; those providing c++ libraries could also belong to
the cpp herd.  This is useful, as the maintainers of those herds can
each deal with issues in their field.  It doesn't matter which category
it's in.

The only concrete thing categories give us is the ability to have two
packages with the same upstream name without having to mangle the
upstream name.

Unfortunately the category system is deeply embedded in portage and the
tree, so changing that system is simply not going to happen, which is
why I've stopped whinging about the semantic inadequacy of the system.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to