Re: Group by functionality or family? [WAS: Bug#187245:galeon-snapshot: idiotic section change]
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > Well, I'd go to aptitude's categorical browser, scroll down to "sound
> > > and music", then pick "music notation", and there's lilypond and just
> > > one screen full of other stuff.
> > >
> > > Which I think, illistrates that these new archive sections are nothing
> > > more than a patch on a dead-end system. Maybe they'll keep it tottering
> > > along for a little while, but it's got no future.
> Concerning this, I'd like to point everybody to
> http://debian.vitavonni.de/packagebrowser and the corresponding
> announcement on this list (without replies) from Erich,
I see some discussion at:
> <20030323222023.GA6585@bombadil.xmldesign.de>. There, you can see
> aptitude's categories Joey is talking about above and you can add new
> categories (please think twice) and above all, put your own packages
> into proper categories for later inclusion in aptitude (and other
> package management frontends eventually).
> Thanks a lot to Erich for doing this, btw.
> The big advantage of using this with aptitude is that we don't need to
> change policy for the time being while the user experience will get
> enhanced appreciably when sarge releases. We *can* do this in time for
> the next release!
I talk about using Trove descriptions. It would be fairly easy to import
upstream notions of what packages are about this way as trove is (or at
least was) used at freshmeat.net and sourceforge.net. I think the value of
trove descriptions is even higher than just categories. I was thinking
about creating a package with a large collection of trove descriptions
mapped to their appropriate packages.
Can this aptitude functionality be added to dselect without much fuss?