I think tags would be cool but really not worth the effort. Like Dan said, descriptions are king. On Jul 30, 2013 7:17 PM, "Daniel Micay" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' > >> - apparently not a hot topic. > > > > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD > > using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay > > [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages > > without a category. > > > > [1] I don't think the caetgories are useful in the current state, > > because they don't represent natural grouping of existing software at > > all (eg. should a GTK utility be considered "gnome", "x11" or > > something else?). For this to work, tags would be in my opinion much > > more usable – given the packages were properly tagged, anyone could > > easily find packages such as "gtk multimedia player". > > I think descriptions and dependencies include the required information > in almost every case. >
