Re: Getting rid of section "base" ?
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:
> > ...
> > > tty
> > > tty/stdio
> > > tty/curses
> > > tty/dialog
> > > tty/newt
> > >
> > > X11
> > > X11/Xt
> > > X11/Xt/Xaw
> > > X11/Xt/Motif
> > > X11/Gtk+
> > > X11/Gtk+/GNOME
> > > X11/Qt
> > > X11/Qt/KDE
> > > X11/Tk
> >
> > I wuld suggest to use a syntax like this in the Packages file:
> >
> > Interface: tty (stdio, dialog), X11 (Xt, Qt)
>
> Problem I see: we can't sub-classify Xaw and Motif from Xt with such a
> syntax.
Interface: X11 (Xt (Xaw))
:)
> > The main interfaces seperated by commas and subtypes in brackets.
> > Also Interfaces none, net/html and such, ggi, svga and tty/aa should
> > be included. Anything I forgot?
>
> "things" with interface net/html falls into the "server" nature, and
> probably declaring this would not be useful in the packaging system.
Debconf as an example has interface html. Also I see no reason why
Interface entries in the package file should be restricted to some
area. It should be optional, so for things where it doesn´t make sense
it can be left out.
> "UserInterface: none" is a pure contradiction IMHO. At least error
> messages have to reported in some way.
>
> OK for ggi, svga and tty/aa - just noticed I forgot X/DGA.
>
> ...and there are probably tens or hundreds of toolkits (eg. wings) in
> the dist which we did not mention - but is this really worth at all ?
> Probably if we decide to go this way, only the major UIs will be
> listed, minor ones may fall into "other" as examplified below:
A major thing is fb, whereas X11 may be a subset of fb as can be
berlin or ggi. I don´t now if there are any pure fb prorams except the
XServer and the ggi fb traget, but might be worth keeping in mind.
I also suggest to use a scheme like suggested with subtypes for
interfaces. The top characteristic should be stdin/out, text or tty,
graphics and then everything else as subtypes. That way you can sort
out all text driven programs which would include all subtypes. A
Syntax with brackets would save repeating the front part as e.g. in
X11/X1/Xaw + X11/Xt/Motif. I sugest that anything might be set as
interface for the subtypes but not for the first or first two levels,
which should be defined and exhaustive. Hardly anybody cares what
subtype of Xt is used by a program, but if the maintainer cares, he
can mention it.
> > I also think that the interface should not show up on the layout of
> > the debian file structure (ftp/cdrom). People looking for a package to
> > do something don´t so much care for the interface as long as it does
> > the job. For other cases where the interface matters the Interface
> > value from the Packages file can be used in a frontend.
>
> Seconded.
>
> > Maybe program should be split up further into stuff like games and
> > such.
>
> In my mind "games" is still a section - eg. you'll find clanlib as
> "Nature: lib; Section: games".
Yes, your right. Still there are so many programs in debian and
looking for some special game of which you don´t exactly know the name
will be hard and also the filesystem overhead will be great for a
large directory.
> > Also where do windowmanagers go?
>
> X11 - windowmanagers are really components of the X11 GUI. They're
> already in this section and I'm happy with that.
X11 would be under "server"? At least most of it I would guess. Or
should there be a directory for guis?
> > I would like sections for games, graphics, utils
> We already have them.
> > interfaces.
I ment directories on the archive.
> Hm... X11 has its own. Maybe it could be ui/x11, and other UI stuff
> ggi and Tk would fall under ui, ui/x11 or ui/other unless we decide
> there are enough packages to create eg. ui/ggi.
Would be overseeable.
> > > 2. UserInterface: A list of ways the programs in the package interact
> > > with their users. Possible values are to be defined by policy,
> > > examples are given at the top of this mail.
> > >
> > > 3. Section: [As the current packaging manual says] the Section
> > > represents an application area into which the package has been
> > > classified.
> >
> > Those should be for frontends only, i.e. in the Packages.gz and
> > controll.tar.gz.
>
> As would "Nature" IMHO - where else would you see it used ?
Nature as in "Server" "Lib" "Doc" ... I would like those to show up in
the archives structure to shrink directory sizes. Too many files in a
directory, esspecially with several version and maybe sources floating
around. The Pool suggestion is hopefully coming along, we should
contact whoever is working on the pool.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: