On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=set? > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 > > It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format > every time it's bought up?
The problems with PROPERTIES=set remain exactly the same as they were when it was first proposed. > I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain. > Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least > two tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain > that. Uh, I don't see how that's in any way difficult to maintain. > Tag is a property or attribute of package That one's highly debatable. > PROPERTIES=set have the same advantages - they can also be pulled > within dependency tree by other packages. Yes, but PROPERTIES=set has all of the problems it had when it was first proposed, and is the wrong way to implement sets. > > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, > > wikis and web 2.0. > > Using already proven technologies and tools is barely disadvantage. I > think last thing we need is yet another obscure format nothing widely > usable understands. Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for decades then. > Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not > mix unrelated things. Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
