Tuesday, 3. February 2009, Josh Saddler Ви написали: > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > I was thinking, maybe it would be possible to drop categories completely > > in the future (maybe keeping symlinks for compatibility and to ease > > migration) and to put *all* packages in one directory - that would > > require making all names unique of course. > So, what, we're turning into Debian? Arbitrary package (re)naming? Yuck! > Our current policy is to call the package what upstream calls it. We can > do this largely *because* of categories. There are a few noncompliant > packages, but the system generally works pretty well.
Besides, in my opinion, the ability to see "what's there" in at least minimally categorized way without having to resort to using some special tools or going to some website is worht something. In this vain I was proposing going the opposite direction - to allow arbitrary nesting of categories, like going sci-math -> sci/math and deeper (then packages would naturally be specified by "FQEN" - fully qualified ebuild names). Its not like tree walker would be the most complex part of code in portage.. George
