Re: Russ Allbery 2008-03-30 <87y780do91.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> > >> The control field for specifying admin, net, utils, etc. is "Section", so > >> I think Policy wins here and main, contrib, and non-free should be called > >> categories. > > > For what it's worth, and possibly to add more confusion, dak uses the > > term "component" in this case. > > Also, I guess my first reaction isn't as conclusive as I'd like, since > Section, the control field, is actually used for both. The sections in the admin/net/utils sense were used to be called subsections. The full section name was "main/admin" "main/net" etc, with the main/ prefix being optional. > I sort of like component better than category. I wonder if we should > change both documents. Although I think Policy is fairly uniform and > consistent on using category, and other software, like Lintian, follows > the current terminology of Policy. Policy is consistent because #369912 got fixed. (Sorry I didn't speak up earlier.) In practise, I think we should revert that change, and go for some other term, as nobody seems to actually use "category" in practise. The old Section/Subsection ambiguity isn't really optimal, though works if the fact that of omission of the main/ prefix is stressed more clearly. Component is also ok, as that's what dak uses - the argument that "component" implies endorsement doesn't really hit, as that's more or less equally true for "category" or "section". I'd opt we use Section - there must be some truth in the control file format :) Christoph -- cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature