On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o> wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be
>>>> categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented
>>>> in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category
>>>> moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up.
>>>
>>> Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because
>>> it is not worth the trouble of doing the move?  I assume we inherited
>>> the category idea from fbsd ports.
>>
>> It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories.
>> It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file.
>>
>> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections
>
> Tags instead of categories . . . Now here's a very interesting idea, indeed.
> Has there ever been a proposal like this for Gentoo?

many times.

>
> I think we could improve on the Debian way of doing (sub)sections And I
>  think that a good system of tags would do better than most distros which
> have a fairly limited set of arbitrary categories (like desktop, system,
> utils; who knows what the heck those last two mean, anyway?) But blog-style
> multiple tags might be very, very nice, if we could agree on a set of tags
> to use, without trapping ourselves into some of the weirder categorization
> used by other distros, like Slackware's arcane alphabetic system.
>
> Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is it an
> old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :)

Probably more than 5...

>
>

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list