On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:07:08 +0900 Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thijs has a point: with the suite:: tags I just would like to transfer > existing information in the debtags system. In the future, the > information could flow in the opposite direction, but this is up to the > people developing the CDD framework. (the metapackages of debian-med are > Custom Debian Distribution metapackages).
I still think suite:: retains some usefulness in conjunction with field::, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. And perhaps also, everyone is so focused on debian-med's needs that we're not seeing the bigger picture: what do we do for CDDs in general? It is possible that *any* arbitrary set of packages can be used to create a CDD. The field:: tags are a nice way for debian-med to divide their whole CDD into related subsets, but for other CDDs (like Debian Jr.) field:: doesn't make sense. All that a "suite::debian-med" designation would mean is "this package is in the Debian-med CDD". Similarly "suite::debian-jr" would mean "this package is in the Debian Jr. CDD". For a finer breakdown of what kind of package it is, see the other debtags for the package (in debian-med's case, field:: and works-with:: appear to be important, whereas for Debian Jr. use::, game::, etc. are more interesting). Thoughts? Improvements to this? Rotten tomatoes? Ben -- ,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] \`' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] [ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
