Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections

[Thomas Hood <thood@excite.com>]

1) It seems to me that many packages are in the wrong
section.  E.g., the "X11" section contains many programs
that *use* X as opposed to implementing and supporting X.
But these packages ought to be located in the section that
describes what they do or what they are about.  Otherwise
every app with an X interface would go in "x11".  Comments?

2) It seems to me that the "libs" and "doc" sections of
the archive are anomalous in that they classify packages
based on something other than the purpose or theme of the
contents, with the result that we have cross-cutting
classification schemes.  Why, e.g., is libaudiofile0 in
"libs" while "libasound0" is in "sound"?

Perhaps "libs" and "doc" are supposed to be analogous to
"misc"---i.e., whereas "misc" contains miscellaneous
executables, "libs" is supposed to contain miscellaneous libs
and "doc" is supposed to contain miscellaneous docs.  In that
case many of the contents of "libs" and "doc" could be moved
to more appropriate sections.  libaudiofile0 could be moved
to "sound" and dpkg-doc to "admin", for example.  Comments?

("base" is also anomalous, but it seems to serve a purpose
in this case to classify differently---based on importance
rather than theme or purpose.)

Thomas Hood