Re: Categorization of packages (was Re: Aptitude, ARs)
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:26:40AM -0800, Osamu Aoki <email@example.com> was heard to say:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:06:54PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > Anyway, there are (according to apt-cache stats) exactly 12585 binary
> > packages TODAY. I think that you're being too optimistic if you believe
> > a natural (ie, easy to navigate) categorization exists which is balanced
> > enough to squeeze this into 3 levels and 25 leaves in each lowest
> > screen.
> No I do not. My point was current 2 levels alone to narrow down was way
> too small levels for 12585 binary packages.
Oh, I see.
> > I think that for the full documentation, it might help if it were
> > written in some structured format with a table-of-contents. I'm not
> > sure if I want to include a viewer for something like that in aptitude
> > or if I should ship HTML and spawn a web browser, but the README is a
> > bit unwieldly right now.
> html as the source?
> I can make debiandoc-sgml quite easily from your text which can make
> 1. text
> 2. html (single page or multi page)
> 3. PDF
> 4. PS
> 5. info (but why bother.)
> Building PDF and PS are tricky but text and html are easy. It will
> provide TOC automatically. Do you wants me to do it?
Is debiandoc-sgml something whose use is encouraged? I thought I heard
it was deprecated in favor of Docbook. Anyway, I am thinking about some
sort of metaformat like docbook or LaTeX.
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <firstname.lastname@example.org> -------------------\
| You will soon forget this. |
\---- Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/