| 1 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be |
| 5 |
>>> categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented |
| 6 |
>>> in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category |
| 7 |
>>> moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. |
| 8 |
>> Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because |
| 9 |
>> it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited |
| 10 |
>> the category idea from fbsd ports. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories. |
| 13 |
> It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Tags instead of categories . . . Now here's a very interesting idea, |
| 18 |
indeed. Has there ever been a proposal like this for Gentoo? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think we could improve on the Debian way of doing (sub)sections And I |
| 21 |
think that a good system of tags would do better than most distros |
| 22 |
which have a fairly limited set of arbitrary categories (like desktop, |
| 23 |
system, utils; who knows what the heck those last two mean, anyway?) But |
| 24 |
blog-style multiple tags might be very, very nice, if we could agree on |
| 25 |
a set of tags to use, without trapping ourselves into some of the |
| 26 |
weirder categorization used by other distros, like Slackware's arcane |
| 27 |
alphabetic system. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is |
| 30 |
it an old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :) |
Archives