On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:39:30PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Enrico Zini dixit: > >On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 03:13:25PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >Thanks for the suggestions. Let's have a look: > >> suite::bsd > >Can you name about 7 packages that would use this? > mksh, quota stuff, openntpd, libbsd, libbsd-arc4random-perl, > all of the GNU/kFreeBSD tools, am-utils, bsd-mailx, bsdcpio, > bsdgames, bsdgames-nonfree, bsdmainutils, bsdtar, bsdutils, > csh, cups-bsd, cupsys-bsd, dump, fwbuilder-bsd, heirloom-mailx == nail (?), > isakmpd, libamu*, libedit*, lpr, netcat-openbsd, nvi, nvi-doc, > openbsd-inetd, pmake
Ok, I added the tag to the vocabulary (contrarily to Zack, I believe that both GNU and BSD can make sense as software suites) and added the tag to these packages: mksh, openntpd, libbsd0, libbsd-dev, libbsd-arc4random-perl, am-utils, bsd-mailx, bsdcpio, bsdgames, bsdgames-nonfree, bsdmainutils, bsdtar, bsdutils, csh, cups-bsd, cupsys-bsd, dump, heirloom-mailx, nail, isakmpd, fwbuilder-bsd, libamu-dev, libamu4, libedit2, libedit-dev, lpr, netcat-openbsd, nvi, nvi-doc, openbsd-inetd, pmake. > >> use::scripting or something similar (for shell, perl, python, php, etc.) > >The way I see it, something like a shell or python doesn't have to have > >a use: that is, you can use them for pretty much any purpose. > Hm at the moment I have use::login, if so I'd have to remove that. > Wouldn't it be better to include as many uses as possible? In theory yes, but in practice there's always a risk of including too many and ending up with tags that are too specific, or that are subsets of other tags, or that overlap with other tags. Giving more thinking to it, how about use::programming? That would be nice and broad, and cover a whole area that isn't currently covered by use::* tags. Or possibly use::development (for Software or Hardware Development): that would somehow cover the uses that are then categorised in more detail with devel::* tags. > >> devel::lang:shell (for dash, bash, ksh, pdksh, mksh, zsh, but NOT csh/tcsh) > >> maybe you've got to add devel::lang:csh too though ;) dunno about > >> heirloom-sh > >This one's difficult: there are many shells, but every shell has some > >scripting differences, which makes me worry whether "devel::lang:shell" > >would mean anything at all for practical purposes. > Superset of POSIX and somewhat compatible to it? > Maybe include Bourne (heirloom-sh). I'm pondering devel::lang:posix-sh, or devel::lang:sh-posix : comments? Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
