Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
In Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:53:48 -0400 Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu> cum veritate scripsit :
> One thing that I think is that we should have a clearly defined "default"
> categorization system, which is a reasonable way to find a program with
> the first level of grouping, at least, being "function" (which is how I, at
> least, would generally want to look for software, and which gives you a logical
> overview of the system: "Ok, we have sound programs..types of sound programs
> are MP3 players, MIDI players, MOD players, etc.." I'm not sure how this
> should be generated and/or distributed, and people would probably want to
> generate their own special hierarchies based on other criteria. (someone
> said last time that they'd want to sort based on file-types handled)
Trying to make hierarchies will probably fail, because we don't seem to be able
to agree on a set hierarchy.
I'm looking at "Provides:" now, and it looks promising if we extend its notion.
We could use a "Section:" based on "Provides:" syntax.
For example, XEmacs is an editor and an emacs, and also a MUA, and Programming
environment, so it would be
"Section(or Provides): editor, emacs, MUA, Programming-environment"
For the conventional usage, just use the first item, "editor". So that
the current system doesn't break.
This isn't backward compatible.
We can use "Provides" in this way, can't we? Providing more virtual-package names
in the policy.
Or, we could introduce a "Keywords:"
regards,
junichi
--
University: ti0113@mail4.doshisha.ac.jp Netfort: dancer@netfort.gr.jp
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.
... Long Live Free Software, LIBERTAS OMNI VINCIT.
Reply to: