| 1 |
On 06/22/2011 02:38 AM, Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 2 |
> Whatever happened to implementing tags for the Portage tree? The idea |
| 3 |
> behind tags was to avoid spamming users with more and more |
| 4 |
> directories, especially for apps that are hard to categorize. Which, |
| 5 |
> arguably, is most of them. We have tags for weblog content/topics; |
| 6 |
> tags for ebuilds are also a good idea. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It could be implemented with a metadata.xml extension, or possibly an |
| 9 |
new ebuild variable. A GLEP would be a good way to propose such an |
| 10 |
extension. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Splitting up the media-* categories doesn't solve any problems for |
| 13 |
> the packages that do many different things, whether encoding, |
| 14 |
> playing, editing, wrapping, connecting, etc. Many media apps belong |
| 15 |
> in 3 or 4 or more categories. Tags are the right solution for these, |
| 16 |
> rather than being pigeonholed into just one category, which only |
| 17 |
> reflects one use. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I tend to agree that addition of more categories probably isn't very |
| 20 |
useful. However, I wouldn't be opposed to people adding new categories |
| 21 |
if they believe that it will be useful somehow. |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Zac |
Archives