On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 03:25:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jordà Polo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Other than that, there are still a few things, such as the Source/Ref > > field, that could benefit from more discussion here in the list. If the > > classification for tags without Ref[4] is to be used, how should it > > compare to tags with Ref? Treat keywords as if they were "manuals"? > > That at least was what I had in the back of my mind.
Then manpages and URLs probably need be classified too, which makes sense. But how about manuals that are seldom referenced? Where do we draw the line? This is the number of references for each manual: 215 policy 27 devref 18 doc-base 13 fhs 13 menu 4 debconf-spec 4 menu-policy 4 perl-policy 2 python-policy 1 libpkg-guide 1 lintian The first five manuals probably deserve to be identified as a "source", but I'm not so sure about manuals with 4 or less references. > > Also, how do you think --tags should interact with other options such as > > --display-level? If it makes sense to use both options at the same time, > > what should be the behaviour, display tags as an AND of all options? Or > > does an OR make more sense? > > I agree with Frank here. AND makes the most sense to me. OK, good. Forgot to say that that is what is currently implemented. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
