Peter Rockai wrote: > Justin B Rye wrote: >> Peter Rockai wrote: >>> There are some things bothering me about current vocabulary. One >>> of them is the devel::lang: and made-of:: stuff. The >>> made-of::<language> should probably go away for all >>> turing-complete programming languages and be replaced with >>> made-of::source-code. devel::lang: should be just ripped out. >> >> At present, the made-of::lang and devel::lang facets give two >> different kinds of information. It's possible (and informative) for >> a package to be tagged "made-of::lang:c, devel::lang:python" or >> vice-versa. > > Yes, an information hardly worth 20+ extra tags.
Well, you have two votes against throwing the information away. [snipping] > The user interface is not supposed to show tag names. Those are internal. The > short descriptions are what is relevant for the user. And that says > Programming Language, as i say above. No way to confuse that with culture. Yes, fair enough; let's forget about the names. Except that... >>> The cases where a package contains source code in language A but >>> is primarily useful with language B can be handled by tagging with >>> both language::A and language::B. The idea is that if it's written >>> in A, it can be useful for A coders anyway -- studying code, >>> reusing, etc... >> >> As an administrator, I would prefer to apt-get a bandwidth-monitor >> made-of: C to one made-of: PHP. But meanwhile I avoid everything >> under devel: because I'm not a programmer. To me, this looks like a >> very bad idea. > > Apart from the slight problem that C-implemented packages are not made-of C. > If they are, the facet is completely nonsensical (there is no C code in the > package). ...Now you're quibbling about the nomenclature (couldn't it equally easily be the literally accurate "made-from::"?) while ignoring the example. I'm not installing the bandwidth-monitor app for the source code. >>> So the language:: facet would go like "useful for coders in a >>> given language". >> >> A special-interest facet which belongs under "devel::". > > No. There is no "facet hierarchy". For goodness sake. How long it takes till > people grasp the concept? Does Stable have a user-friendly tag-editor that doesn't present it as a hierarchy? When it does, go ahead and start the clock. >>> As for rest of made-of, there's only data:*, so made-of::data and >>> format:: (File Format) facet would be probably a good idea again. >> >> Why exactly is it better to have a cluttered top level? > > Why exactly do you need to show all of the top level all the time? Besides. > There is no hierarchy. So there are no levels other than "facet" and "tag". And if there's no difference, it can't be a change for the better! But in fact I'm happy to concede the point about the facet structure; what I care about is not throwing away information. >>> The other option is to double the format facet, but it doesn't >>> make too much sense IMO. We can always fix it if it turns out to >>> be a problem, so i vote on keeping it simple. >> >> "Double" in what sense? > > understands-format:: and contains-format:: (absence of better names, that'd > have to be thought of in more detail) Ah, right. Yes, that sounds familiar. >> Please don't throw out the made-of::lang/devel::lang distinction. > > I won't if someone comes up with a plausible use case. On current archive. I thought I'd given one. If normal users aren't expected to be interested in the difference between made-of::lang:c and made-of::lang:php, why do so many package descriptions mention it? Oh well, how about a specifically programmerish one: at present I can quickly and easily search for a package "for coding in lisp, but not written in lisp". Plausible? Implausible? > Let's note that made-of::lang: has different semantics that implemented-in:: > which is again slightly orthogonal. However, if something is > made-of::lang:<scirpting language> it is usually also > implemented-in::<scripting language>. However for compiled languages that is > not true. As I understand it, all the tags from implemented-in:: were automatically migrated to made-of::lang: - so you might say it's more a matter of etymology than semantics... oh, wait, I'm arguing semantics again, sorry. -- JBR Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing) _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
