Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Moshe Zadka wrote:
>
> Tasks should be *orthogonal* to package categorization. Tasks are a
> convinient way to install packages relating to some..well...task. Say, if
> I'm a Python program, I know that if I install task-python I'll be able
> to program in Python. That might include things in interp/ devel/ and
> maybe even X11 (say, an IDE).
>
Right, that's what I think, too. You can't make a categorization out
of tasks. And you can't make tasks out of categories.
> On the other hand categorization helps me when I have something specific
> I want to install (say, freeciv). I want to know where to look for it:
> games, x11, what?
>
Yes, this is the problem we're trying to address here because the current
categorization scheme hasn't scaled well to 5000 packages.
> I think the answer to categorization could be:
>
> -- have all the packages in one central directory
> -- have different directories for each category, each with symlinks to
> the central directory.
having all packages in one central directory.... reminds of package pools,
in package pools it also seemed to be logical but unfortunately ext2fs is
too slow on huge dirs so implementation-wise you have to split it, but
you don't have to split files according to their meanings (say just names
perhaps, or a good hashing on names)
symlink farms have been proposed for package pools. you can find some discussion
in "implementing testing" thread.
listmaster, is the search page working?
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: