On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:19:48 +0200 Erich Schubert <erich@debian.org> wrote: > That's one reason why the category tree should be kept outside of the > packages file, but in a separate tree imho. > That way, different languages could even have different trees. > > aptitudes does this, too. Categories are kept separate from the > Package-Tags that way one can easily modify the hierarchy. > > If some languages / cultures etc. massively disagree on one concept, > it is best to add different keywords for these aspects. I'm fairly agnostic about it. So long as the data is available, and at least one frontend supports it, I'm happy. I intend on taking up Daniel's offer and work on this seriously. That being said, I don't see why it can't be in a header. If the data is bad, then the frontend doesn't need to use it. I don't even see why we can't have multiple people categorising them, each with their own header. Yes, header bloat. "Big fucking deal :)" is my attitude primarily - it doesn't need o be used, after all. apt-cache show doesn't include Task: for instance. Of course, *that* being said, if categorisations are done badly, and they're in the package file, I would support that person not categorising any more :) (Yeah, even if it's me. I'll probably fight it [since I would have done what I thought best], but I'd submit to popular opinion in the end) -- ________________________________________________________________________ \ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com / / eelf@sympatico.ca, elf@terrabox.com | http://eelf.ddts.net \ \======================================================================/ / Clan Barclay motto: Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachment:
pgpUSFH_JriMK.pgp
Description: PGP signature