[Debtags-devel] Updating tags on svn

[Justin B Rye]

Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Revised draft: four tags.  Review and comment.
> 
> role::sw:utility
> 
>  A lean, tightly focused tool (or a collection of such tools), normally
>  run noninteractively, which

Maybe "commonly" or "naturally" rather than "normally".  They're
designed to suit noninteractive uses, forming the basic building
blocks of pipes and toolchains (mixed metaphor alert).

> role::sw:backgrounder
> 
>  A daemon, a program normally run as a cron job, or a program normally
>  invoked automatically in response to a network event.

Even if they aren't daemons they're likely to be invoked out of
run-parts(-style) directories - init.d, cron.d, ip-up.d, hotplug.d,
pam.d, Xsession.d, apt.conf.d...

> role::sw:application
>  
>  Programs too complex, unfocused or featureful (as perl or the
>  autotools) to be called utilities.  Programs whose normal interface
>  is interactive or nonminimalistic (as mozilla or top).  Tools which
>  transform data in intricate, adaptive or highly nonobvious ways (as
>  latex or gcc).

Strange how the upshot is that these are the glossy, powerful,
user-friendly packages, but our definitions always sound like
criticisms. 
 
Would minimalistic dockapps (wmclock, for instance) still be
applications?  Are things like 9menu simplistic enough to be
utilities (despite requiring mouse input)?

> role::sw:game
> 
>  A game.

Perhaps "a game, toy or trivial amusement" to be sure of catching
things like filters or xjokes.

>  .
>  Most packages will get no more than one of the four tags
>  role::sw:{utility,backgrounder,application,game}.

The first exceptions that come to mind are
* ssh - daemon (backgrounder) plus client (utility)
* imagemagick - an application plus a framework of utilities
But a package containing xbloatware plus an update-bloat script (run
as part of the install) is just sw:application.

You know, I think this works.

> I have one comment.  German is a tremendous language, but my
> Germanic pseudo-word "backgrounder" is admittedly uncouth.  Perhaps
> there is a Latin word we can press into service, to go with the Latin
> words "utility" and "application"?  If so, what word can we use in place
> of "backgrounder"?

Automation?
-- 
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)