Enrico Zini dixit: >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.
Sure, why not? >I'm pondering devel::lang:posix-sh, or devel::lang:sh-posix : comments? devel::lang:posix-shell maybe, it reads better. >> interface::plugin or something similar: no interface, just providing >> some kind of API/ABI (use: e.g. almost all CPAN modules) > >I wouldn't do that: it'd mean that they have no user interface: in that >case, you just don't use a tag from interface::*. Okay. >> made-of::data:pod ⇒ Documentation in perlpod(1) format > >Do we have more than 6/7 packages mostly consisting of POD >documentation? As I have understood made-of::data:man these tags don’t mean „consists mostly of documentation in «foo» format“ but “contains documentation in «foo» format” – at least the automatic thing suggested me to use made-of::data:man for mksh, and for libbsd-arc4random-perl the pod equivalent was just missing, so I suggested it. Please correct me if I’m wrong and made-of::data:man only applies to manpage collections. //mirabilos -- Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh- ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C" _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
