Re: Review of all the Debian Med debtags, and questions.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Enrico Zini wrote:
as far as software is concerned, that software may work with. I can't
think of anything like that, so I'd go with "biological-sequence" at the
moment, and we're always in time to rename it later.
Sounds reasonable.
works-with::graphs would probably make more sense considering we have
loads of graph theory and visualisation software around. We may fix the
confusion by describing the tag as "Trees and Graphs".
Reasonable as well.
use::simulatinng
At least two of our packages would use it (adun.app, epigrass), and
others like flightgear could definitely use it too. I think it would
easily gain critical mass.
Totally. I'd say this is uncontroversial, so I've added it.
Hopefully with only on 'n' (use::simulating)?
special::unmaintained
We unfortunately package some programs that are Upstream-dead, as many
other Debian packages are. Sadly, this tag could become very popular.
Yes. I am planning a maint::* facet, in cooperation with Debian-QA, to
convey this sort of information (also, rc-buggy, fringe, obsolete-deps,
etc.)
Will the rc-buggy automatically maintained by querying BTS?
works-with::temperature
We would have three candidate packages, but criticall mass would
probably attained with sensors and weather packages.
I see the need, but I'm looking for a better name: sensors and weather
packages wouldn't just measure temperature, but also pressure, light,
wind and whatnot. So maybe something along the line of
"works-with::physical-measurements". "works-with::measurements", even?
That may include benchmark tools as well, and instinctively I'd say "why
not?"
Why not? ;-)
made-of::data:examples, or role::example
Is it worth to separate examples from documentation?
Sometimes examples are quite large. At least we have 70 packages with
the string example in the name:
$ apt-cache search example | sed 's/ - .*//' | grep example | wc -l
70
use::calculating
Definitely needed. "calculating" or "computing" ?
I'd slightly tend to "computing" but no strong opinion.
Lastly, I have the impression that there are some strong redundancies:
role::devel-lib and devel::library (actually, maybe the whole devel::
facet could be formulated with appropriate combination of other
Debtags). I have systematically used the first and ignored or even
deleted the second. (I can repair this if you disagree).
That is redundant indeed, but still both tags make sense in their
facets. My gut feeling is to just live with it, and maybe even write
some code to add one of the tags if the other one is present.
To force the obvious redundancy? You mean to make sure that different
point of views of the people who do the packaging is penetrated to the
proper place? It somehow feels strange - but you have the experience
in this field ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: