Re: Packaging system improvements
Behan Webster writes:
> Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> > How about a full hierarchal structure than the two levels we currently
> > have - which are non-free/control/main as the first level and then
> > base/web/doc/devel/... as the second level.
> I don't think this buys you anything. Despite being able to
> categorize a package down even further, you are still categorizing
> things buy a single feature. But what feature should you use?
> Is emacs classified as an editor? An X11 program? A full-screen
> program? A web browser? A mail reader? It can be classified as
> anyone of those things and more. Many programs (although to a
> lesser extent than emacs) fit into multiple categories.
This reminds me I didn't see any answer to my question on *HOW* you
would make a distinction between a program using X11 as an interface,
and a package part of the core X11 stuff, with only a Keywords: field.
I still advocate adding more fields, like "Interface:", to the
existing "Section:", for addressing such problems. Then you'll have a
"X11" keyword as Interface, and a "X11" keyword as Section; this seems
to me much more intuitive...
BTW, emacs *IS NOT* a web browser. 'w3' is one, that Depends on emacs;
OTOH, I don't know anyone installing emacs just for reading mail with
rmail, so I add the same comment about 'vm' as a mail-reader... Thus
we spare 2 keywords. Anyway, emacs does provide 'mail-reader', doesn't
> Now, if you use Keywords on the otherhand, you can specify multiple
> categories for each package. All packages can be described in
> multiple ways after all.
Note that even if we finally get hierarchical structure in "Section:"
or any similar field (and I'm strongly *for* this extension), the dir
structure need not reflect it...
Yann Dirson <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .