Re: RFC: Keywords instead of Section

[Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu]

> A good solution is explicitly to _type_ the keywords.  Dividing
> keywords up into groups of the same type is very a useful way
> of keeping the system orderly.

  The main problem I have had with trying to do this is that 
it is often not obvious which "type" a keyword really is.

  The ability I built into my system to merge multiple files 
was meant to somewhat address this (the idea is that each 
file categorizes based on a different criterion, and when 
multiple such files are available, each one can be put into
a separate tree (not yet implemented, although it shouldn't 
be hard))

  However, an explicit "type" might be nice.  I await your 
patch ...... or at least, I will once my new power supply 
gets here :-P

> (However, we must absolutely
> not have a type called 'other' !!!)

  If you think a "miscellaneous" category is not necessary,
you have not tried to categorize our packages.  There are
packages which truly defy categorization, and "misc" is
better than having a separate "section" for every offbeat 
package out there.

> I would suggest that instead of re-inventing the wheel, we
> simply adapt the SourceForge/Freshmeat system for our own use.

  The code should be general.  Whoever categorizes the 
packages is free to do whatever they want, but the code 
shouldn't lock us into a particular categorization scheme.

  Also, I'm skeptical about the Freshmeat system (aside from 
searching, I've never been able to find anything with it)

  Daniel