Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18-05-2005 10:37, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> [050517 22:44]:
>
>
>>>What should be covered by a policy ? For example: the namespace tags use,
>>
>>I am not quite sure what is meant by "namespace" above. I guess now is
>>the time to suggest adopting official web ontology. See
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>
>
> We should try to get a common policy for debtags. It would be a pity,
> if e.g. ubunto starts to add "ubuntu::x11" tags, while skolelinux starts
> to add "x11::skolelinux" and such things.
>
> I heard from this weg ontology thing for the first time last weekend, so
> I can't comment on that now, but it sounds interesting.
Eh, it sound like we agree here. What was your point, except that you
(as I) don't really know if OWL is useful to us?
>>An important thing to also include in a policy is also who is ultimately
>>responsible for each tag.
>>
>>I propose each package maintainer to be ultimately responsible for tags
>>of the package.
>>
>>This is not as controversial it may sound: Package maintainance is also
>>ultimately the responsibility of each package maintainer (wether
>>official Debian packages or not), but were overriding package
>>responsibility recquires repackaging and maintainance of the forked
>>package, overriding tagging responsibility is much simpler to do.
>
>
> Why the maintainer? Why not those, who know best about their categories
> / facets / whatever?
>
> How should I know, if the small game I maintain is suitable for kids?
> Has an educational value? I don't have any kids, I just think it's funy
> to play while siting bored in a train. So let this be done by people,
> who it better than me.
The package maintainer collects knowledge about the package from anyone
passing on such info.
The GNOME team sounds like sounds obvious for maintaining suite::gnome
tags, but actually the Debian GNOME group knows better than GNOME
upstream how the big amount of GNOME software is split into Debian
packages. And about old GNOME stuff abandoned upstream but kept alive in
Debian for whatever reason.
Skolelinux and edubuntu ideally work together but in cases they do not
who should then be the primary sourcce of educational tags?
It is easier to ask a group of people to cook a meal together than make
them wash the dishes and clean the tables afterwards: Somehow each
individual assumes someone else is responsible for the tedious and
boring tasks when group-maintained. So I propose an obvious single
entity, the package maintainer (which may be a group!) to be the primary
source of tagging info.
The design of debtags leaves pleanty of room for each group to maintain
tweaks to the default set of tags. What I propose is a sane default.
Proposed official sources of tagging info, prioritized:
1) debtags file in package itself, maintained by package maintainer(s)
2) debtags package, maintained by debtags maintainers
NB! Any person or group can maintain additional tagging info if they
choose, and that can be of help to the development process of the
official info.
Proposed official sources of facets, prioritized:
1) Official OWL XML data (if such info exist and is usable to us)
2) debtags tweaks, maintained by debtags maintainers
NB! Any person or group can maintain additional unofficial facet info if
they choose, and that can be of help to the development process of the
official info.
Example: Tomorrow Skolelinux decides sarge is "stable enough" to release
a new Skolelinux based on it. They decide to use debtags but realize
that those stupid Debian maintainers haven't yet tagged anything, and
the debtags maintainers have only tagged a small fraction - so
Skolelinux sits down and tags everything, and also disagrees with some
of the existing tagging done in the debtags package. SAkolelinux dos not
start completely from scratch, though, as Enrico Zini already personally
has a larger pool of tagging info available to start from.
So tomorrow's Skolelinux release was done exactly as Skolelinux wants it
because what wasn't propersly tagged by non-educationally aware Debian
developers was simply overridden.
After the release Skolelinux then realizes that it's a huge effort to
_maintain_ the big chunk of tags, and looks for ways to pass it on to
others. The obvious thing is then to file wishlist bugreports to each
package requesting the inclusion of a debtags hinting file. Maybe the
Debian developer didn't know at all that his/her package was useful in
educational field, but is grateful to be taught that.
If the Debian deveoper for some odd reason gets furious and refuses to
tag his/her package as educational, or maybe even obstructs by wrongly
tagging the package in a misleading way. Skolelinux off course first try
to convince the package maintainer, but if unsuccesful notifies the
debtags maintainers (so they can discuss wether the debtags policy
should be extended to allow the debtags package to override each package
instead of the opposite). Until a solution is found officially within
Debian, Skolelinux simply keeps its overriding package tagging.
Hope I make sense in all this.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCixznn7DbMsAkQLgRAulxAJ9b33dQttFtOicCB8IWrZyAH2ZQjwCfcdmI
g/CU98GJiKvu6gnfTSL3WB4=
=/byV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: