[Debtags-devel] Data and Role restructuring proposal

[Benjamin Mesing]

Hmm, all this discussion made me think...

> > What is the role of openoffice? I wouldn't call it a utility. And it's
> > not a client either.
> > Similar for many games etc. - so we are still missing something here.
> > Basically, each package should have a role.
> 
> You're right.  That calls for something like "application" and "game".
> There might be others, although I hope there won't be too many.  I could
> think of "window managers" and "input methods" as software with yet
> another different role, and I get worried about how many can still show
> up :(
> 
> But I do agree: each package should have a role.  The debtags-edit in
> experimental has even a features to filter for packages without 'role'
> tags.
I agree here. Here something comes to my mind regarding the tagging of
related packages (like apache-doc). In another thread it was discussed,
if it is appropriate to tag the related packages with those of the main
package + some additional, and Enrico voted for yes. I agree with him.
However IMO the role-tags should not be taken from the main package,
apache-doc e.g. carries the role::server tag. Though removing the role
tag leads to some indesirable inconsistence, I think otherwise it would
be bad for the usage of the role tag.

> While I was at it, I've been looking into dict for definitions of
> 'application' and 'utility':
> 
>    Tag: role::sw-application
>    Description: (Software) Applications
>     A program that provides the user with tools to accomplish a task.
> 
>    Tag: role::sw-utility
>    Description: (Software) Utilities
>     A program designed for general support of the processes of a computer.
> 
> An improvement maybe, but I think we could do better.  At least, I
> instinctively feel that a better distinctive line can exist.
I would avoid two tags "application" and "utility". I think the
distinction between those, will always be a source of confusion. However
I can come up with no idea how to solve this dilemma in another
way :-( I also have difficulties understanding the sw-utility
definition. 
Whats "apt" supposed to be? Or "ls" or "less"...?

> > > It might even make sense to do a bit of grouping here for clarity:
> > Oh, grouping. Hierarchies! Jehova! Jehova!
> 
>  8-D
*rofl*

> 
> > >    role::sw-applet           - (Software) Applets and Dockapps
> > >    role::content-dictionary  - (Content) Dictionary
> > >    role::aux-data            - (Auxiliary) Application-specific data
> > Why not use role::sw::applet, role::content::dictionary etc. and add
> > the option to select a whole "group"? Sometimes you don't really care
> > which kind of software it is, which kind of content...
> 
> I'm still wary of using a double "::": I'm happy to try grouping to
> organise tags inside a facet, but I still feel strongly about not mixing
> the concepts of facets and tags.
I like the idea of grouping with double "::" allowing deeper
hierarchies.

>    role::devel-lib   - Development library
>    role::shlib       - Shared library
What exactly are devel-libs, whats the difference to shared libraries?
Do we need to distinguish both?

>    role::content-fortune     - (Content) Fortune quotations
IMO this should be role::data or something alike but more general. No
sense in treating fortune specially (or we could start with
role::themes-icewm, role::themes-kde,...).

>    role::content-icons       - (Content) Icons
Perhaps make this a little broader (like role::content-graphics or
something alike) to allow tagging photos and other stuff here (don't
know if there is a package containing photos).

>    role::content-text        - (Content) Books and text documents
>    role::content-userdoc     - (Content) User Documentation
Please give it a more elaborate description. "User documentation of applications"?


Greetings Ben