I agree that debtags would be a more flexible way of handling categorization, though we can't do that until bug 57418 is fixed. And this isn't the first time we've tripped over the problem of the Debian Section values not having official definitions. But in the meantime, Ubuntu Software Center has been treating the language-/runtime-related Section values as if they meant "items useful when developing software using this language/runtime". This works very well, with a few isolated exceptions (e.g. bug 546968).
Some of these items in these subsections are applications, but most are not; they're libraries, bindings, and so on. Neither Pinta nor Gnome Do appear in "Developer Tools" > "Mono/CLI", because neither of them are in a "cli-mono" Section; they're in "universe/gnome" and "graphics" respectively. (And Gnome Do has a .desktop file that would trump the Section value anyway.) It's a reasonable point that MonoDevelop can be used to develop non-Mono applications, so it should, and does, appear in the general "IDEs" subsection -- but since it is the centerpiece of Mono development, perhaps it should *also* be present inside "Mono/CLI" but not inside "Ruby" and "Java" and so on. Does that seem reasonable? If so, we have a mechanism worked out just for this: X-Ubuntu-Category- Secondary. The way to get this going is to add "X-Ubuntu-Category- Secondary: Mono" to MonoDevelop's .desktop file. Then the USC developers can take care of the rest. -- Monodevelop missing from Ubuntu Software Center's "Mono/CLI" subsection https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/546936 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
