1 |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:23:54 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the |
4 |
> repository. While I'm fine with having tags in the repository also, |
5 |
> there is talk about giving users ways of supplying them as well. |
6 |
|
7 |
Why? You can have carefully controlled sets for fancy things. But tag |
8 |
sets don't need to be carefully controlled. |
9 |
|
10 |
The way you give users control over tags using sets is to make sets in |
11 |
overlays be merged with sets with the same name in the main tree, and |
12 |
then allow users who feel like it to publish an overlay containing |
13 |
their tags. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Here is how I see tags being used: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> 1. I want a WYSIWYG html editor. |
18 |
> 2. I search for tags like "editor" and "html" and "WYSIWYG" and maybe |
19 |
> even "text." |
20 |
> 3. I check out descriptions and homepages or whatever for a few |
21 |
> likely candidates, and install one or maybe two. |
22 |
|
23 |
$package_mangler search-tags editor html wysywig |
24 |
|
25 |
> What I doubt I'd ever do is just install any package that has anything |
26 |
> to do with text/html editing. |
27 |
|
28 |
Not really a problem. Sets are usable for lots of things, not just |
29 |
installing. They're useful in configuration files, for example -- you'd |
30 |
probably never want to install every X driver either, but you might |
31 |
want to set some options for every X driver. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |