Re: Package Browsing
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 10:36:05PM +0100, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> was heard to say:
> > What do you think? I think the author of aptitude has done a great job
> > in categorizing the packages...
>
> Yeah. But what about the unclassified ones? Most of my packages are not
> classified yet, is there something I can do about this?
You can edit the hierarchies in aptitude and send me patches. (press
"E" on a package to edit it and "S" to save them..)
More information is available in the README.
There are three reasons your packages may not be categorized (aside
from just "I overlooked them in the initial sweep")
(a) The last time I updated my categorizations was several months ago.
Packages added since then are uncategorized. (I've been planning to
do another sweep soon..)
I also accidentally cleared my list of to-be-categorized packages
(cleverly stored by being "new" in aptitude) a while back.
(b) Some packages I couldn't decide how to categorize because they
didn't even fit poorly into any of my categories.
(b) Some packages had no useful description, so I couldn't figure out
what they did without installing them and reading documentation.
> And is there some plan to use these categories in the package metadata
> after woody? Looks like we can make a smooth transition as more and more
> developers might include the categories in their control files and we
> can get rid of aptitude's data eventually.
Something like this would be nice, but for that we'd have to
standardize and `freeze' the list of categories, the way we've
standardized and `frozen' the menu hierarchy. I'm not sure they're
ready for that.
> Mentioning it on ./ might also help getting over with one of the top
> anti-debian-propaganda speach (dselect is lame)
As an aside, the first, somewhat accidental, public announcement of
aptitude was a rather whiny /. comment by me :)
Daniel
--
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
| Put no trust in cryptic comments. |
\---------------------- A duck! -- http://www.python.org ---------------------/
Reply to: