Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
> > > ("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.)
> >
> > Base serves no purpose other than to confuse users (just a bit) by making
> > them arrive to false assumptions and making more difficult for them to find
> > some things.
>
> This is true of every section in the archive. Almost every package can
> conceivably fit in one of two or more sections, and which one they end
> up in is essentially arbitrary. Noone uses the sections for anything
> real today; they're just a historical relic. (And BTW base is a true
> relic since it doesn't even contain the entire base sysrem anymore.)
The `base' classification is on a different level, something like this:
^
|
| base
| interpreters, graphics, etc.
o ------------------------------------>
Yes, the X axis is messy, but is another point. The `bash' package belongs
to interpreters.
------------
And BTW, about this `X axis'... You need some kind of qualification. It's
true, shadows of gray prevent us from drawing perfect lines that would
divide among packages... but we need those lines somewhere though. Like RMS
said: it's dificult to say when a man is drunk... after one glass of vodka?
two? three? but somewhere you need a line and tell him he can't drive.
Uhmm.. I have an idea, let's make a proposal:
Package: foobar
Section: sound, x11
The second one is a secondary section, is as if in `x11' you had this:
x11/
foobar@ -> ../sound/foobar
Existing tool would just need to ignore everything past the first comma (or
optionally, handle the secondary section).
Reply to: