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 ?
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>
http://monge.univ-mlv.fr/~dirson
--
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: