On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:28:48PM +0200, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree
> > where each package can go in multiple categories?
>
> So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat tree
> where each package can go in multiple categories?
So now, that I've read all messages in this thread, I needed a point to
start at..
I guess my approach isn't a way to go, but I can't find the reason
Brian Harring wrote:
> > The layout on disk and the semantics of categories do not need to be > >
> > related.
> Yes and no. You're assuming that people don't use the layout on
> disk for digging around without calling portage. Personally, I do.
Sometimes I do the same; but other times I find
maillog: 11/05/2005-10:33:23(-0500): Brian Harring types
> The original request was having a package turn up in multiple
> categories for searching, right?
Actually, that was a side effect. The original request was to stop
moving packages around, which is the most annoying part and is also the
pa
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:11:02AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> >>>Yes and no. You're assuming that people don't use the layout on disk for
> >>>digging
> >>>around without calling portage. Personally, I do.
>Not need to be related, but shouldn't be related. In essence this
> allows people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:01:17PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>
>>maillog: 11/05/2005-03:40:04(-0500): Brian Harring types
>>
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Here's my suggestion, for w
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:01:17PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 11/05/2005-03:40:04(-0500): Brian Harring types
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > > Here's my suggestion, for what it's worth :)
> > >
> > > The layout on disk and the semantics of c
maillog: 11/05/2005-03:40:04(-0500): Brian Harring types
> > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > Here's my suggestion, for what it's worth :)
> >
> > The layout on disk and the semantics of categories do not need to be
> > related.
> Yes and no. You're assuming t
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Here's my suggestion, for what it's worth :)
>
> The layout on disk and the semantics of categories do not need to be related.
Yes and no. You're assuming that people don't use the layout on disk for
digging
around without cal
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:09:20, Brian Harring wrote:
> One thing that just clicked in the skull on why flat-tree has issues; >
> currently it's possible to have a package with the same name, yet a
> differing category (app-vim/sudo vs app-admin/sudo).
Aa flat package namespace would necessitat
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 01:27:46PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> As to whether the categories are good or not... think about it. If they
> were good, would we still be seeing packages moving around the tree?
> That's why I think that multiple categories are a necessity. Unless of
> course, packag
maillog: 10/05/2005-22:30:56(-0500): Brian Harring types
> Re: having a package claimed by multiple categories... eh. yeah,
> that's a bit valid although I'd think it's either A) an indiciation
> our categories need to be adjusted a bit, or B) (hopefully) a rare
> case. :)
No, no, please not A
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:04:04PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 10/05/2005-11:28:21(+0200): Martin Schlemmer types
> > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > > Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> > > > Would it be inappropriate to start bitc
maillog: 10/05/2005-11:28:21(+0200): Martin Schlemmer types
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> > > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
> > > tree where each package can go in multi
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
> > tree where each package can go in multiple categories?
>
> That's something I'd love to see eventually..
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
> > tree where each package can go in multiple categories?
>
> That's something I'd love to see eventually..
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
> > tree where each package can go in multiple categories?
>
> That's something I'd love to see eventually..
Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
> Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
> tree where each package can go in multiple categories?
That's something I'd love to see eventually... I mean the flat tree,
not the complaining ;-)
Regards,
Aron
--
Aro
maillog: 09/05/2005-01:50:04(+0200): Lars Weiler types
> * Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/05/08 17:01 -0600]:
> > You could always borrow from the Germans and call it app-handy.
>
> Yeah! That's pure Denglisch :)
>
> And while we are on it, add all packages for presentations
> into an "a
On Sunday 08 May 2005 04:46 pm, Alin Nastac wrote:
> R Hill wrote:
> > this doesn't include anything like VOIP of course. btw i think
> > "cellphone" is an Americanism. i worked for AT&T Wireless before they
> > were bought by Cingular and the term "cellphone" was discouraged for
> > that reason.
* Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/05/08 17:01 -0600]:
> You could always borrow from the Germans and call it app-handy.
Yeah! That's pure Denglisch :)
And while we are on it, add all packages for presentations
into an "app-beamer" group ;-)
Well, back on topic. Some of the suggested pac
On 5/8/05, W.Kenworthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Oz, cellphone is only used in american movies, here they are called
> "mobile phones" (formal), "mobiles" (common usage) and "mob" when
> written (e.g., Mob: 0419...)
>
> There's also the upcoming "cell" processor architecture that may clash
>
In Oz, cellphone is only used in american movies, here they are called
"mobile phones" (formal), "mobiles" (common usage) and "mob" when
written (e.g., Mob: 0419...)
There's also the upcoming "cell" processor architecture that may clash
in the future.
How about app-mobphone or app-mobilephone or
R Hill wrote:
>
>
> this doesn't include anything like VOIP of course. btw i think
> "cellphone" is an Americanism. i worked for AT&T Wireless before they
> were bought by Cingular and the term "cellphone" was discouraged for
> that reason. maybe just app-phone?
hmm... I think it should includ
Alin Nastac wrote:
Hi folks,
I think we should make a new category called app-cellphone containing
the following packages:
net-dialup/gammu
net-dialup/gnokii
net-dialup/wammu
net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager
Yes, I know. It is a short list, but shouldn't be a category
representative for its
25 matches
Mail list logo
