On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:16:15 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:58:50 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:50:45 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2017, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > >> https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-180003.1.1 > > > > >> "Category Names" > > > > > > > > > I don't see a requirement here, only note on most common > > > > > pattern: > > > > > > > > > ``Note: A hyphen is not required because of the virtual category. > > > > > Usually, however, category names will contain a hyphen.'' > > > > > > > > It is a note on what is the exclusive pattern, with the single > > > > exception of the virtual category. I believe that we shouldn't break > > > > that pattern. > > > > > > I'm fine with this approach, but could PMS be updated to contain > > > more clear statement to avoid misunderstanding? E.g.: > > > ``all category names must contain a single hyphen with a > > > special exception for "virtual"'' > > > > It's not a "must". Also, putting that rule in and having the package > > mangler enforce it can have unintended consequences: for example, > > there used to be the mild nuisance of dealing with overlays which > > didn't contain a categories list, and which did contain directories > > named CVS all over the place. > > OK, let's say "should", or ever better explain details, e.g.: > > All newly created categories should follow "group-qualificator" > pattern, a name without hyphen is allowed for a "virtual" category > and for compatibility reasons in overlays. > If PMS is going to specify that, there ought to be better reasoning then "that's how it's always been done." What concrete benefit is there to _requiring_ hyphenated categories?
