[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Aptitude, ARs

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:43:51PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> It is kind of funny that you always start saying "I have proposed this
> problem with MY solution long time ago with bug #xxxx".  Please think
> that why this bug has not been fixed after 1 year. Tell me what stalled
> this progress?  (Do not blame on the unwillingness of others.  Start
> from the fact that you *failed* to *persuade* them.  Sorry for my harsh
> words but let's find a solution here.  I know chances of success for my
> attempt here is also not very high either.  It is a real challenge.)  

It's probably fixed because not enough people find it a worthwhile goal to
fix it or some other things have higher priorities. I'm just asking to
consider fixing this before doing other stuff. YMMV.

> I think you are missing my intent of fixing these issues in aptitude.  I
> think first thing to do is to establish *proof-of-concept*
> implementation of sorting category and keyword/attribute assignment.
> That is what we are proposing here with aptitude.

There have already been done some proposals in this same list:

1.- http://people.debian.org/~enrico/tagbk-draft.pdf (sent by Enrico Zini
to debian-devel in july last year)

2.- The menu code rewrite including it's new hierarchy. After all, it
resembles a proper division on Section/Subsection.

3.- The bug #144046 lists some proporsals on a multiviews-tree and keyword
based mechanism.

> > PS: And we _could_ use a similar division as those used by other
> > distributions which have tackled the issue already and do have
> > Sections+Subsections...
> Sure, but we need concrete examples or rule here.  Can you point out
> example?  "like ..." is not enough.  I need specific one for Debian.

	Sorry, I don't have time to work this out. But one could simply
take a RedHat, SuSe and Mandrake CD and take a look at which applications
they are shipping and how they get divided into sections/subsections. They
have already worked (something) out. We could use it to our benefit. That's
just IMHO but it should not be difficult to do (but it's not in my
priorities list either).

> I think it is easiest to communicate by implementing it in aptitude.
	Then by all means go ahead, however, it's like the task system, a
way to "hide" a problem: user's (at least common ones) cannot
navigate/browse our 9000+ packages with ease and be able to find what they



Attachment: pgp40h2Q05MiC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: