Wyatt Epp posted on Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:57:47 -0400 as excerpted: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 14:19, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:55:18 +1200 Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I'd love a tag solution, that'd be nice, is there a GLEP for it yet?
>> The slow parts are coming up with a good design, getting the Council to >> approve it, and getting Portage to implement it. The fast part is >> getting the PMS bit done. >> >> The problem with tags is that all we've heard so far is "we should have >> tags!", with no description of what tags are, what they'll solve or how >> they're used. > Tags are basically keywords you can use to describe packages, allowing > you to easily search and explore your options based on what the packages > actually does (if we want to get technical, anything that identifies a > package is a sort of tag: name, version, license, set, checksum, etc.). Umm... I believe Ciaran meant "no description" in the practical PM implementation rules sense, not in the general definition sense, which I suppose most folks here understand by now. Ciaran is, after all, a (arguably the) prime mover behind PMS, defining the standards to which Gentoo package managers must conform. So his concern is very likely to be in that regard -- actually seeing a draft GLEP defining the technical rules in enough detail that the three PMs can implement it to the point that if they disagree on how a tag should be implemented and treated, it's clear which one's bugged and which ones following the standard, so the bugged one can be fixed. Until that happens, or at least is actually in process, it's all talk. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
