Re: Section gnustep, was: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:57:46AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote:
>> >> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have
>> >> one for gnome and kde.
>> > I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with
>> > anything depending on gnustep*, or did I not think that through? What
>> > packages would that give?
>> Yep, this would also help me have less warnings in the gnustep-meta
>> packages ( http://www.linuks.mine.nu/i_debian/meta-gnustep/ ), can we
>> change lintian like this:
>>
>> If all agree that we add 'gnustep' to the section. I think
>> lintian package should be updated by adding 'gnustep' to:
>> lintian source
>> testset/info_tags.non-us, line 28
>> checks/common_data.pm, line 21
>> checks/fields.desc, line 172
>
> This will happen automatically (well, sort of) by the lintian
> maintainers when policy gets changed (and not earlier than that).
>
> On topic: I don't really think a section for this few packages is worth
> it.
>
> Package count (binary, unstable of two days ago, without contrib and
> non-free) is below, and it shows that even the smallest section has
> nearly 300 packages.
>
> Maybe there are better splits to imagine (seperate compilers from
> devel? Client networking stuff from net (as opposed to server networking
> stuff)?)
>
> --Jeroen
>
> shells 292
> news 327
> embedded 383
> electronics 515
> oldlibs 647
^^^
Geez.
> comm 658
> tex 700
> hamradio 734
> otherosfs 845
> base 890
> science 921
> doc 1037
^^^^
I suggest doc and doc-devel, with doc-devel being useful only for
programmers.
> kde 1155
> editors 1314
> math 1429
> misc 2049
^^^^
Can't these be categorized?
> mail 2233
> perl 2482
> gnome 2606
> graphics 2765
^^^^
We could certainly do with a separate "video" section for moving graphics.
> text 2914
> interpreters 3081
> web 3233
> python 3252
> sound 3280
> admin 3765
> games 4724
> x11 5217
> utils 5333
> devel 7002
^^^^
"lisp"?
Actually, some of the stuff here appears to belong in libdevel. Beyond
that, this contains a gazillion kernel thingys. So, probably a "kernel"
section? ;-) Other parts are perl- or python-specific.
> net 8941
^^^^
Some of the stuff in here belongs in 'mail', and some probably belongs in
'admin'. A few bits belong in 'web'.
Beyond that, separating out 'net-daemons' or 'net-servers' from the others
(mostly clients) would be very reasonable.
> libdevel 11895
^^^^^
A fair amount of this is devel packages for old versions of libraries and so
probably belongs in oldlibs. 'oldlibdevel' perhaps?
> libs 13390
^^^^^
Yowza. And yet, I don't think 'libs' should be split; everything in 'libs'
should be wanted only if you have a program which uses it, and that's a
nice meaning. Except, more should probably be in 'oldlibs'.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: