Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:15:35 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: Anton Berezin <tobez@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for comments: port-tags Message-ID: <200511071015.35935.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051107181849.GG40923@heechee.tobez.org> References: <20051107154634.GA40923@heechee.tobez.org> <200511070936.21519.ringworm01@gmail.com> <20051107181849.GG40923@heechee.tobez.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 November 2005 10:18, Anton Berezin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:36:20AM -0800, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > On Monday 07 November 2005 09:23, Anton Berezin wrote: > > > So even for two levels, what you ask pretty much does not make a lot of > > > sense, provided I understood your idea (and please explain in to me one > > > more time if I did not)! > > > > One common gripe about the ports system is the two level directory > > structure is too flat, and certain folk resist rather vigorously > > adding sub categories. The sugestion put forth was to use tags as a > > multilevel directory structure and using the actual structure only as > > place holders > > > > The idea is to decouple the actual ports directory structure, and come > > up with something more useful without having to change the actual > > ports structure. If your tags are only one level deep, we aren't much > > better off than before. > > No argument here, more or less. We, however, seem to disagree about the > actual implementation. > > Maybe we should not think about tags as categories and dispense with the > idea of a `level' altogether. > > Tags, as opposed to multi-leveled categories, are equal to each other. > One needs to be very careful imposing a structure where there is not > one. > > So instead of thinking in terms of tags as multi-level categories on > steroids, the idea is to be more operational: > > "I want a _mail_ _client_ that supports _maildir_ and _imap_". No > levels. > > The actual technical implementation becomes much more sane, too. Think > "joins", as opposed to pre-populating huge text file with all [alright; > not all; some; who gets to define which ones?] possible combinations > of tags. > > So, to re-iterate, the right operational mode for this is not "go there, > see what's in it", but "impose a restriction, see what's left". > > Are we on the same wave? :-) > > \Anton. OK, but if someone wants to browse the port tree to see what is there, how are they going to do it when the initial index is 64,000 lines long? -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511071015.35935.ringworm01>