[Debtags-devel] Proposed Debtags goals for Etch

Justin B Rye jbr at edlug.org.uk
Sat Jul 16 22:15:41 UTC 2005

Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> I don't know much about the package file format - but does this mean
> that the Tags: field can be set by the maintainer now? If so, the
> primary goal must be, to mostly stabelize the vocabulary.

Time for a rush of new wishlist tags, then, right?  I have a stack
of them I've been mulling over.

>               * What about documentation packages? Would make 
>                 implemented-in make sense for them too (e.g.
>                 implemented-in::html, implemented-in::sgml,...)?    

It's plausible enough to stretch "implemented-in::html" as far as
docs packages, but not for, say, icons packages; personally I'd
prefer to see a facet that worked as a general-purpose "made-of::".
(At present format::html seems to be used largely for made-ofs, but
also for packages like webbrowsers, which I suppose would be
"works-with::html" if that existed). 

>>  - if data goes automatically to the Packages file, we should have a
>>    stricter control on what goes in. [...]
> Why do we need stricter control for this? What is the difference in
> automatically changing the package file and automatically changing the
> debtags database (or is this not done automatically now?). Is one or the
> other more likely to be "attacked"? 

I don't know if it's happened to anybody else, but two or three
times now I've seen debtags-edit suddenly decide it wants to add a
huge collection of tags to its patch collection that I never asked
for.  I've always managed either to catch them before submission or
at least to follow up the garbled version with a manually-composed
correction, but I'd hate to think there was a risk they'd go
straight into the repositories.
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list