Hello > It's not so much the idea of use::developing being added to the > vocabulary that worries me - it's the idea of having to go through > the 7000-odd packages with devel::* or role::devel-lib tags and > decide whether to add a use::developing tag for each one. I would say, that everything tagged devel::* can be implied to be use::developing. In my opinion, the devel:: facet is conceptually located inside the use:: facet. Perhaps we get some false positives, but I doubt it will be many. Besides we are having this kind of problem (in a smaller scale) everytime we introduce a new tag. We need to trust the community to fix that tagging over time (which is really easy now, due to the very nice web interface!).
> For instance, if I find a package is already tagged use::editing, > does that mean it doesn't need to be tagged use::developing? I'd say yes. A package should be tagged use::developing, if software development is one of the primary use cases for the package. E.g. I would say, that the KDE texteditor "kate" could well be tagged use::developing, since its features set is targeted for development (syntax highlighting, capabilities for comments and so on). Best regards Ben _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
