[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging system improvements

Brian White writes:
 > > Yes, but a keyword list provides very poor structure for this type of
 > > information. Providing several concurent ways of classifying the
 > > pacakges will give better structure, and thus will be easier (more
 > > straightforward) to search.
 > > 
 > > I suggest (again) at least the following fields:
 > > 
 > > Interface: (eg. X11, console, tty, stdio)
 > > MainFonctionnality: (eg. editors, devel/compilers,
 > >         games/arcade/tetris-like, etc.)
 > > DistPolicy: (eg. free/GPL, free/PD, free/custom,
 > >         restricted/non-profit, etc.)
 > The keyword list provides the exact same thing but doesn't bother to
 > break it down into three different headings. 

See above. It doesn't provide the same level of *structure*. With
additional keywords, it would be trivial to add to an interface to
filter packages according to, say, Interface.

How will you do that with structure-less keywords, when we'll have 50
of them ? We'll just have an alphabetic list of these 50 keywords,
most of which will be unrelated to the previous and the next...

 > Multiple headings really
 > doesn't gain anything and makes it less extensible in the future.

See above for an *example* of gain; just add more keywords to extend
it. Where's the limitation ?

About structure: just compare LaTeX to Plain-TeX: how many people
still use the latter, and why ?

Yann Dirson <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: