Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:15:50AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> >
A hashed directory structure /{a-z}/{a-z}/package will suit humans
just about as well as net, text, etc.... grepping the Packages
is pretty decent; how come they aren't alphabetically any more?
Please reconsider the category thing. More categories can be a WORSE
thing, not a better thing, particularly if you insist on packages
living in only one. Then you get into sub categories and how to
allow cross linked categories. You will find yourself joking about
whether bind belongs in "earth", "air", "fire" or just "big shiny things".
The person next to you will view it differently. Half of us will
put qmail into "something soft underfoot"; the other half will put
int "heaven". ;^)
> This analogy didn't seem to me well adjusted since painting would seem
> to involve things other than fundamental questions.
Blue paintings, Impressionist, group by author, by date, by
size, by price, by "quality", by appropriate setting eg living
room, bedroom, or by mood. Forget it.
It does not work. Practically speaking, you might consider a
categorization (if needed) parallel to open directory or Yahoo.
That isn't going to fly for a sysadmin. OTOH, you might be able
to package systems with equivalent of --get-selections and a description
of the kind of system.
$.02
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher cfm@maine.com
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Reply to: