Re: re-categorizing
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 08:35 -0300, Barbara Figueirido wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> ter wrote:
>
> > I did not mean to subsume court administration under any of the proposed
> > categories. I should have qualified my proposal - the categories are not
> > an exhaustive list at all. Additional categories can, and should be
> > added. I was looking for a few categories to sort the already listed
> > packages into metapackages, and to prioritize this sorting so that I
> > (and not necessarily others) can ignore certain packages. I wanted a
> > narrower set of categories[1], so that they are unlikely to overlap too
> > much with future additions, and also to allow me to drop the categories
> > that intersect least with these narrower cateogries, and court
> > administration is one. It will now be added back in, because you do not
> > want to ignore it.
>
> After your insights, I thought a bit further on the subject, and found
> that maybe adding court administration makes too broad a scope for a
> first Blend. This also started me thinking that maybe we should make a
> distinction between which categories might be useful and wich ones
> should go on the final Blend (thanks to Andreas' hints; I must reckon it
> is sometimes hard for me to think on terms of packaging a distro, I
> still view packages as useful resources -- the problems of being just a
> user) ;)
I don't think there is any harm in having important
categories/metapackages that may contain only one package right now, or
even none at all. Both wiki and the svn repository are there for
continuous revisions. So leaving the category in as even just a reminder
is useful. When debian-lex is released (soon, we hope :), these
metapackages can be excluded. That will naturally happen in the release
process.
> > LoggingTrackingCalendaring_server
> > LoggingTrackingCalendaring_lawyer
> > LoggingTrackingCalendaring_paralegal
> > LoggingTrackingCalendaring_support
>
> I would think like Andreas, in that this would be a bit too much. I
> liked his idea of having a common package on configuration. Of course, I
> can only state general ideas on the subject, not being in any way expert
> on packaging.
Just thinking aloud - definitely too ugly. I need to read up on
debian-edu to understand more about roles and configuration.
>
>
> > Would you say "evidence management" is more important for what we in the
> > US call "criminal law"? In any case, it got dropped mainly because I was
> > thinking "civil law", and did not want to deal with it. So it will be
> > added back to the proposal.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong; I thought in the US you had a good deal on "evidence
> management" within all fields of law; at home we gather a fair amount of
> evidence on damages processes, labour law and other causes where there
> is much factual material (although it might be difficult to have general
> packages, due to the great differences on its collection between legal
> systems).
>
I was guessing, and did not, and do not know what I was talking about.
Based on what you are saying, it is obviously important enough to be
included. Looks like there is one package for it already, although I
haven't checked its project status.
> On the other hand, I would like to comment on Andreas' assertion
> (please, note that my comments are just from the point of view of the
> end user)
> <quote>
> Well, IMHO every category that has at least a set of *existing*
> packages which are needed in this field make sense.
> </quote>
> I refer again to my view that we might think in terms of
> working-categories and categories-to-be-released, since we are still on
> the initial stages of researching available software. Within the first
> scope, I think it would make sense to search for packages meeting these
> needs. On the other hand, I much agree with Andreas in that there should
> be no 'vapourware' on the final Blend.
See above about releases.
> BTW, I have used some bibliography packages to manage scanned documents
> & photos, in order to classify them, although I admit it wasn't quite a
> satisfying experience.
I have done similar ad hoc things. I think as part of this project, we
need to open a work space to collect knowledge of this kind, about what
worked, and most importantly, what did not. For now, maybe on the wiki.
>
> Ah, Elaine, thanks so much for the work you are doing! The wiki is
> beginning to have real substance.
After about 4 hours of work on a Sat. afternoon, I had very little
substance to show for it. But I'm glad you appreciate it. I am still
getting familiar with the moinmoin thing, and keep having to redo and
correct. Hopefully, I can accomplish more as I get a little more
proficient. I am also hoping others would also soon choose to similarly
waste their Sat. afternoons ;)
I have now discovered the translation do-dad in the default template. So
I am using it in my additions. Hopefully, we will eventually i80n
DebianLex as much as the other blends.
Regards,
Elaine
Reply to: