Re: Debtags for defining the minimal age that a program can generally be used
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > While you could for sure create tasks like this
> >
> > educational-age-0-3
> > educational-age-3-6
> > educational-age-6-12
> > game-age-0-3
> > game-age-3-6
> > game-age-6-12
> > toy-age-0-3
> > toy-age-3-6
> > toy-age-6-12
> > ...
> >
> > and than create metapackages like
> >
> > age-0-3:
> > Depends: educational-age-0-3, game-age-0-3, toy-age-0-3, ...
> >
> > age-3-6:
> > Depends: educational-age-3-6, game-age-3-6, toy-age-3-6, ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > and
> >
> > educational:
> > Depends: educational-age-0-3, educational-age-3-6,
> > educational-age-6-12
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I would consider this pure overkill. We intended to keep things simple
> > and so this should not be a proposal for a solution. Just to explain
> > chances and limits of the tasks approach.
> >
>
> For some strange reason I kind of like that approach, it might not be as
> overkill as it sounds and, even if it might not be a good idea for
> starters, as there would be much more categories than programs, whenever we
> start having enough programs classified, it's a reasonable layout that
> might escalate nicely.
OK, if you like it - that's possible. But I personally would start
rather with less than with more tasks - may be adding some comments
inside to give hints for further splits.
What I also wanted to add is a common missunderstanding about tasks: In
the past I have seen frequently that people try hard to fit one package
into one task. That's totally not intended. One single package can
reside in several tasks for sure. So if we are not sure whether foo fits
into age-0-3 or age-3-6 - just put it into both tasks if there might be
some use for children in both (or more) ages.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: